Lee v. Moore
| Decision Date | 10 June 1937 |
| Citation | 191 S.E. 589 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | LEE. v. MOORE. |
Error to Circuit Court, Pittsylvania County; J. T. Clements, Judge.
Action by Julius Moore against S. W. Lee. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.
Affirmed.
Argued before CAMPBELL, C. J., and HOLT, GREGORY, BROWNING, EGGLESTON, and SPRATLEY, JJ.
Harris, Harvey & Brown, of Danville, for plaintiff in error.
Coleman B. Yeatts, of Chatham, for defendant in error.
Julius Moore, an infant, by Lee A. Moore, his next friend, brought this action by notice of motion against S. W. Lee, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff while riding as a guest in an automobile owned and operated by the defendant. A trial by a jury resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,000. The trial court overruled the motion of defendant to set aside the verdict and entered the judgment complained of in this writ of error.
The plaintiff was a student at Callands High School, in Pittsylvania county, and a member of the basket ball team. The defendant was a teacher in the school and coach of the basket ball team. The Callands School was scheduled to participate in a basket ball meet to be held at Virginia Polytechnic Institute at Blacksburg, Va., on December 13, 1935. The distance from Callands to Blacksburg is approximately one hundred and five miles. The basket ball team was under the sole care and supervision of defendant. Plaintiff and three fellow members of the team were guests in the automobile owned and operated by defendant. The game in which Callands was to participate was scheduled for 1:30 o'clock p. m. After the game the defendant, a former student at V. P. I, visited some of his friends in the school, and at 6 o'clock p. m, with the plaintiff seated in the front seat and the three other boys in the rear seat, left Blacksburg for Callands. The weather was foggy and rainy when the party left Blacksburg, and after a stop for supper at Salem, Va., the defendant drove to Glade Hill, at which point he left the main highway and proceeded toward Callands on a secondary road in order to decrease the distance. About two miles from Glade Hill, while rounding a curve, defendant's automobile left the highway and traveled a distance of one hundred and thirty feet. While traversing this distance the automobile ran over a ditch on the side of the road, over a pile of lumber, up a bank three feet high, and struck a tree. At the moment of impact all of the occupants of the automobile were asleep. Both plaintiff and defendant were rendered unconscious, and the plaintiff suffered severe injuries.
The ground on which plaintiff bases his right of recovery is set forth in the notice of motion as follows:-:"* * * that you (defendant) so carelessly and improperly drove and directed your said automobile that by and through your said careless and improper conduct at a point about two miles southwest of Glade Hill on route No. 648 leading to Callands, and just before rounding a curve bending to your left, because of your gross culpable and wanton carelessness in the operation of your said automobile by falling asleep and allowing your said car to leave the above mentioned highway striking a tree causing the injuries to me herein complained of through no fault of my own as I was at that time
* * * sitting on the front seat beside you. That the said automobile was by you driven along the said highway at a high rate of speed and you were grossly negligent in allowing yourself to fall asleep, causing the car to leave the said highway and causing me the damage herein complained of * * * "
The defendant relied, as grounds of defense, upon his plea of the general issue; his denial of the commission of any acts of negligence amounting to gross, culpable, or wanton carelessness; that plaintiff was injured to the extent claimed.
It is assigned as error that the court erred in refusing to set aside the verdict because contrary to the law and the evidence.
This assignment presents this question: Under the facts of this case, was the defendant grossly negligent in permitting himself to fall asleep?
Since the advent of the automobile, so much has been said by the courts in regard to the questions of ordinary care, gross or culpable negligence, the duty a host owes to his guest while riding in an automobile, and other kindred matters, that the field of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farfour v. Fahad
...evidence is sufficient to warrant the inference of fact suggested, plaintiff might recover on a showing of gross negligence. Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 191 S.E. 589. The only evidence which the plaintiff points out warranting an inference of drowsiness or sleep is the statement of Simon to ......
-
Willoughby v. Driscoll
...Jur., Automobiles, § 688; Blood v. Adams, 269 Mass. 480, 169 N.E. 412; Pickering v. Stearns, 182 Wash. 234, 46 P. (2d) 394; Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 191 S.E. 589; Steele v. Lackey, 107 Vt. 192, 177 A. 309; Ryan v. Scanlon, 117 Conn. 428, 168 A. 11. Whether plaintiff was guilty of contribu......
-
Newell v. Riggins
...permits himself to go to sleep while driving is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of want of due and proper care. Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 282, 191 S.E. 589; Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 10, 18 S.E. (2d) 258; 138 A.L.R. 1385; Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 476, 25 S.E. (2d) Howev......
-
Lipscomb v. O'brien
...for a defendant to fall asleep while driving an automobile, rendering him liable to his guest, is a jury question. Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 191 S.E. 589; Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 18 S.E.2d 258, 138 A.L.R. 1385. See, also, The Law of Automobiles (Michie) par. 76. The plaintiffs case does......