Kruy v. Smith
| Decision Date | 18 January 1929 |
| Citation | 108 Conn. 628,144 A. 304 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | KRUY v. SMITH ET UX. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Fairfield County; Carl Foster, Judge.
Action by Mary Kruy against F. Richard Smith and wife, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been caused by defendants' negligence. From a judgment on a directed verdict for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Error, and new trial ordered.
Raymond E. Hackett, of Stamford, for appellant.
Stanley T. Jennings, of Westport, for appellees.
Argued before WHEELER, C.J., and MALTBIE, HAINES, BANKS, and YEOMANS, JJ.
According to the testimony offered at the trial, the jury might reasonably have found the following facts: The plaintiff was engaged in general housework, being employed by the day by various people. On October 26, 1927, she had been engaged by the defendant Mrs. Smith to work for her as a laundress, and about 7:30 in the morning Mrs. Smith drove a five-passenger automobile, a family car, to the plaintiff's home to get her. Mrs. Smith brought her to the rear of the house, where she was to work, and stopped the car. She then said to the plaintiff, who was sitting on the back seat, something to the effect that they had arrived, and had a large amount of work to do. Thereupon the plaintiff rose, put her right hand on the rear of the front seat of the car, and her left hand on the handle of the door to open it. At that moment the car, as as the plaintiff expressed it, " started going forward and backward motion," " commenced to buck back and forth." Thereupon the plaintiff fell through the door of the car onto the ground, receiving the injuries for which she seeks to recover.
The defendant contends that the plaintiff was within the purview of chapter 308 of the Public Acts of 1927, which denies the right to recover for injuries suffered while one is being transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as a " guest," unless the accident was " intentional on the part of said owner or operator or caused by his heedlessness or his reckless disregard of the rights of others." The Legislature, when it used the word " guest," did not intend to include persons who are being transported for the mutual benefit of both the passenger and the operator or owner of the car, and, in determining whether the transportation was for the mutual benefit of both, not merely the act of transportation must be considered, but also any contract or relationship between the parties to which it was an incident.
Whether one is a " guest" must often resolve itself into a question of fact, to be determined by the jury under appropriate instructions from the court. The instant case well illustrates this principle. In the application of the fellow servant doctrine, numerous cases have arisen where an employee suffered injury while being transported to or from the place of employment in a vehicle of his employer. In Pigeon v. Lane, 80 Conn. 237, 67 A. 886, 11...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morse v. Walker
... ... 349, ... 49 N.E.2d 958; Pence v. Berry, 13 Wash.2d 564, 125 ... P.2d 645; Teders v. Rothermel, 205 Minn. 470, 286 ... N.W. 353; Smith v. Clute, 277 N.Y. 407, 14 N.E.2d ... 455; Potter v. Juarez, 189 Wash. 476, 66 P.2d 290; ... Beer v. Beer, 52 Ohio App. 276, 3 N.E.2d 702; ... saving time for which he, as master, pays--facilitation of a ... servant's work, or the like. Kruy v. Smith, 108 ... Conn. 628, 144 A. 304; Sullivan v. Richardson, 119 ... Cal.App. 367, 6 P.2d 567; Crawford v. Foster, 110 ... Cal.App. 81, 293 P ... ...
-
Duncan v. Hutchinson
... ... passenger and the purpose of the transportation is to take ... the passenger to or from his place of employment (Kruy v ... Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304; Russell v ... Parlee, 115 Conn. 687, 163 A. 404; Haas v ... Bates, 150 Or. 592, 47 P.2d 243; Knutson v ... ...
-
Smith v. Clute
...case of negligence. Such benefit has been found where the passenger was a servant of the owner or operator of the car (Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304;Knutson v. Lurie, 217 Iowa 192, 251 N.W. 147;Garrett v. Hammack, 162 Va. 42, 173 S.E. 535;Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598, 24 P.2d 99.......
-
Sullivan v. Davis
...must be considered, but also any contract or relationship between the parties to which it was an incident.'' Kruy v. Smith, 108 Conn. 628, 144 A. 304, 305. Additional support of the above propositions may be found in Russell v. Parlee, supra; Peery v. Mershon, 149 Fla. 351, 5 So.2d 694; Leo......