Lee v. Watkins, 5--4779
| Decision Date | 03 February 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 5--4779,5--4779 |
| Citation | 436 S.W.2d 479,246 Ark. 15 |
| Parties | Russell LEE et al., Appellants, v. Ernest WATKINS et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
W. R. Hastings, Jr., Searcy, for appellants.
Chapman & Wiley, Searcy, for appellees.
This case requires that we determine whether the evidence was sufficient to support a finding of liability for wilful and wanton negligence under the guest statute. It arose out of an automobile collision which occurred on November 19, 1966, at the intersection of United States Highways 67 and 67C near Judsonia. Ernest Watkins brought this action individually and as father and next friend of Eva Watkins. He charged Richard Lee, the driver of a vehicle in which his daughter was a passenger, with wilful and wanton negligence and alleged that the conduct of Richard Lee was imputed to his father Russell Lee. He also charged James Edward Roberts, allegedly the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision, with ordinary negligence. The evidence, as set out in the abstracts and briefs of the parties, shows:
Eva Watkins was the guest of Richard Lee in an automobile owned by Russell Lee. Both of them were under the age of 18 years. During the evening they had driven around in the vicinity of the intersection and had picked up another couple with whom they attended a movie in Searcy. They had traveled through the intersection at which the collision occurred at least three times that night, approaching in from different directions on different occasions. On one of these occasions they had made the approach from the same direction as that from which the Lee automobile was proceeding at the time of the collision. United States Highway 67 is the preferred highway. There are stop signs facing traffic approaching the intersection from Highway 67C on each side of Highway 67. Richard had stopped at each of these signs at least once during the evening. Immediately before the collision Richard and Eva had stopped at the home of Gary Landis, which is about 500 feet east of the intersection, to take the other couple to the automobile they had left there. Richard and Eva proceeded immediately toward the intersection talking in general about things. Eva remembers that Richard did not slow down at the intersection and remembers looking back and thinking that if a car she saw was far enough away it would not hit them. As they started to turn she opened her mouth to scream and then 'everything happened.' Richard had moved to the community about a year before the accident, but there is no evidence as to how long he had lived in White County. The conclusion from the evidence that Richard proceeded into the intersection without stopping is inescapable. When he did so he collided with the Roberts vehicle. Roberts was killed and Eva seriously injured.
The case was tried without a jury. The circuit judge entered a judgment against the Lees in favor of Ernest and Eva Watkins, having found as a fact that Roberts was guilty of no negligence and that Richard Lee was wilfully and wantonly negligent in that he ran a stop sign at an intersection he knew to be dangerous and drove onto a highway which he knew to be extraordinarily heavily traveled without slowing down or exercising any caution whatsoever. We conclude that the judgment must be reversed for want of substantial evidence to support the court's finding as to Richard Lee.
Our statutes prohibit recovery by a person transported as a guest in an automobile from the owner or operator unless the vehicle is wilfully and wantonly operated in disregard of the rights of others. Ark.Stat.Ann. § 75--913 et seq. (Repl.1957). The terms of the statutes have been held to require wilful and wanton negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct. Cooper v. Calico, 214 Ark. 853, 218 S.W.2d 723; Froman v. J. R. Kelley Stave & Heading Co., 196 Ark. 808, 120 S.W.2d 164; Spence v. Vaught, 236 Ark. 509, 367 S.W.2d 238.
Even when we consider the testimony in the light most favorable to appellees, it is insufficient. The applicable test was set out in Carden v. Evans, 243 Ark. 233, 419 S.W.2d 295, where we said, The burden of proving wilful and wanton misconduct was upon the guest, appellee herein. Poole v. James, 231 Ark. 810, 332 S.W.2d 833; Carden v. Evans, supra.
The only evidence from which any inferences as to the conduct of young Lee could have been drawn was the testimony of Eva Watkins concerning the running of the stop sign. This occurred at about 11:30 p.m. The testimony indicates that Richard Lee did not slow down as he approached the intersection, but he had started the automobile at the Landis residence only 500 feet away. There is nothing to indicate the speed at which he was driving when he approached or entered the intersection. The question to be determined, then, is whether a finding of wilful and wanton misconduct may be predicated upon the fact that the host driver ran a stop sign.
We have never dealt with the exact question. In Bridges v. Stephens, 238 Ark. 801, 384 S.W.2d 490, we held that a jury question as to wilful and wanton misconduct was presented when there was evidence that the host driver was intoxicated at the time of a collision resulting from his running a stop...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
...and circumstances of each individual case. See, e.g. Lawrence v. Meux, 282 Ark. 512, 669 S.W.2d 464, 466 (1984); Lee v. Watkins, 246 Ark. 15, 436 S.W.2d 479, 480 (1969). Wantonness, in the sense of the statute, is a mental attitude shown when a person, notwithstanding his conscious and time......
-
McCall v. Liberty, 5--5240
...or probable consequences to the life or property of another.' Carden v. Evans, 243 Ark. 233, 419 S.W.2d 295 (1967); Lee v. Watkins, 246 Ark. ---, 436 S.W.2d 479 (1969). ...