Hawkins v. L.C. Jones Trucking Co.

• Decision Date: 26 June 1951
• Docket Number: No. 2503,2503
• Citation: 232 P.2d 1014,68 Wyo. 275
• Parties: HAWKINS, v. L. C. JONES TRUCKING CO., Inc.
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Page 1014

232 P.2d 1014

68 Wyo. 275

HAWKINS, v. L. C. JONES TRUCKING CO., Inc.

No. 2503.

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

June 26, 1951.

William J. Wehrli, Casper, for appellant.

Edward E. Murane, Casper, for respondent.

RINER, Justice.

The action which the record in this direct appeal brings here for review is one commenced by Martha L. Hawkins as Administratrix of the estate of Earl Hawkins deceased, in the District Court of Natrona County, to recover damages from the two codefendants Carl Bechtold and the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., for causing the alleged wrongful death of Earl Hawkins as a consequence of a collision of two motor vehicles on highway No. 20 at a place located about 50 miles west of the City of Casper, Natrona County, Wyoming, on March 8, 1949.

The decedent was riding in a jeep automobile owned and driven by the respondent, Carl Bechtold. For convenience we will refer to the Bechtold car as the 'jeep'. The other motor vehicle involved in this collision was a truck weighing about 13 tons driven by Neil Long, an employee of the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., and owned by that Company. Hereinafter it will usually be mentioned as the 'truck'. The cause was tried in said court before Hon. H. R. Christmas, Judge of the 3rd Judicial District, with a jury in attendance.

At the close of plaintiff's evidence Bechtold moved for a directed verdict in his favor, the ruling thereon being reserved by the presiding judge; whereupon evidence was submitted for the plaintiff by calling the driver of the truck and the driver of the jeep, Mr. Bechtold, and examining them as upon cross-examination under the statute. Thereafter evidence was submitted for the defense by the two codefendants and upon its conclusion the defendant L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., through its counsel, moved for a directed verdict in its favor which was by the court denied and exception to the ruling was allowed to the movant. Thereafter the defendant Bechtold renewed his motion for a directed verdict and this was granted by the court. To this last ruling plaintiff saved her exceptions and in due course perfected her appeal to this court.

The codefendant, the trucking company, did not perfect any appeal but as the record before us discloses settled the case as to its alleged liability to plaintiff on July 14, 1950, after the court had directed a verdict for Bechtold, and no judgment was given plaintiff against it. This settlement was approved by an order of the regular presiding judge of the 7th Judicial District, the Hon. C. D. Murane. The codefendant, L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., had previously on the 5th day of January 1950, moved for and obtained an order from the District Court dismissing its cross-petition filed December 14, 1949, against Bechtold, without prejudice. That cross-petition, to present it in rather complete detail, charged as negligence on the part of Bechtold as follows: 'That immediately prior to said collision and while the truck owned by said L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., was being operated on its own and proper side of the road, the said Carl Bechtold turned his vehicle toward the left and over the center and into the line of traffic occupied by the truck then being operated by said L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., and the said Carl Bechtold failed to drive and keep his said vehicle on his own or said right-hand side of said highway. That at said time and place, the said Co-Defendant, Carl Bechtold was driving at a high and dangerous rate of speed so that his vehicle was out of control and that as a result of his negligence aforesaid, the above-mentioned collision occurred and this Cross-Petitioning Defendant suffered the damages stated above.'

The same day the cross-petition was filed the trucking company filed its separate answer to plaintiff's petition, for the most part consisting of a general denial of negligence on its part as asserted by plaintiff's pleading and averring that the negligence of Bechtold in driving the jeep 'over the center line of the highway and into the path of the truck being operated by this Answering Defendant, causing the same to collide and that such collision was the proximate result only of the negligence of the said Carl Bechtold.'

The plaintiff's petition hereinafter charging in that pleading that the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., 'negligently operated this truck with the left wheels thereof across the center and upon the left side of the highway and negligently failed to turn promptly to the right of the center of the traveled road and to remain on the right of the center thereof until the approaching jeep in which decedent was riding had passed'; then alleged: 'That defendant Carl Bechtold, when approaching the truck operated by defendant L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., at the time and place above mentioned, was traveling on his own right hand side of the road, but as he approached the truck operated by defendant L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., and when within a short distance thereof, he turned his vehicle abruptly to the left and into the path of the approaching truck, and at the time of the collision the left wheels of the said jeep, operated by defendant Carl Bechtold, were across the center of the highway and upon the left side of the highway.'

The following paragraph 5 of plaintiff's pleading also charged: 'That defendant Carl Bechtold was grossly negligent in the operation of the jeep which he was driving at the time and place above described, in that when he approached the truck of L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., he failed to remain on his own right hand side of the road until the approaching truck has passed, but negligently and without cause or reason turned his vehicle abruptly to the left and into the path of the approaching truck.'

The defendant Bechtold's separate answer denied the charge of negligence against him but admitted that his co-defendant, the trucking company, was negligent as charged in plaintiff's pleading. As an affirmative defense he alleged that Hawkins was Bechtold's guest at the time of the accident and alleged that at the time of the impact of the two vehicles the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc., truck was on the wrong or left side of the highway directly in the path of Bechtold's vehicle and that the accident was due solely to the negligence of the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc.

Plaintiff's reply to the separate answer of Carl Bechtold was a denial of all allegations of defendant's answer except it admits that the trucking company was negligent as alleged in plaintiff's pleading. The separate answer of the L. C. Jones Trucking Company, Inc. denied any negligence on its part and asserted that the proximate cause of the accident was the gross negligence of Bechtold in failing to remain on his own right-hand side of the road, but instead drove the jeep on the wrong side of the road and into the path of the truck.

It is clear from the pleadings and proofs of the parties that so far as the defendant, Bechtold, is concerned this matter must be viewed in the light of section 60-1201, W.C.S.1945, commonly known as the 'Automobile Guest Statute' and which reads: 'No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been caused by the gross negligence or wilful and wanton mis-conduct of the owner or operator of such motor vehicle and unless such gross negligence or wilful and wanton mis-conduct contributed to the injury, death or loss for which the action is brought.'

It may be here noted also that the cause was tried on that theory by all parties concerned, the question to be resolved being therefore whether under the circumstances proven herein gross negligence in the operation, by Bechtold, of his automobile at the time of the collision was established. In examining the evidence in this record in conjunction with the pleadings of the parties as above outlined and the proofs submitted on the trial of this case we must bear in mind the rule of this court as to the manner in which cases presenting directed verdicts should be considered. That rule is specifically stated to be, Galicich v. Oregon Short Line R. Co., 54 Wyo. 123, 87 P.2d 27, 30: 'This court has heretofore indicated that in determining whether the trial court properly sustained a motion for a directed verdict the evidence of the plaintiff must be accepted as true, with the reasonable inferences to be drawn from it, and that where this fails in law to establish a claim, it is the duty of the court of first instance to so instruct the jury. Rosson v. Hylton, 45 Wyo. 540, 548, 22 P.2d 195, and cases cited therein.'

Under this rule considering it in the aspect most favorable to the plaintiff, we review briefly the cross-examination of the drivers of the jeep and truck respectively called as witnesses by counsel for the plaintiff under the statute:

Carl Bechtold, the driver of the jeep, thus testified: On the 8th of March, 1949, when this accident occurred he owned a jeep station wagon, a 1948 Willys jeep with metal body. This car would hold five passengers comfortably. It had soft tires which held about 24 pounds pressure in them for easier riding. It was an almost new vehicle. Bechtold had had it less than six months; he did not give it any unusual amount of use in that six months' time; the tires were passenger tread tires. He and Earl Hawkins left Casper a few minutes after 8 a. m. when it was daylight; he was en route to Powell by way of Cody where a short meeting of the local union was to be held and then they were going to proceed on to Powell to the Elk Basin where Mr. Hawkins was employed. Hawkins intended to return to work there. Mr. Hawkins had come to Casper to visit with his wife over the...