Masters v. Cardi, Record No. 3182.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1947 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3182. |
| Citation | 186 Va. 261 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | MARIE E. MASTERS v. LILLIAN R. CARDI AND LUCY CARDI, AN INFANT, ETC. |
Present, Holt, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston, Spratley and Buchanan, JJ.
1. AUTOMOBILES — Negligence — Driving More than Thirteen hours out of Twenty-Four — Purpose of Statute. — The purpose of Acts of 1932, page 658 (), limiting the number of hours one is permitted to operate a motor vehicle on the highways, is to increase the safety of life, limb and property. The law recognizes that there is a limit to the strength and endurance of everyone. It is common knowledge that one whose strength and endurance have been worn down by long and excessive driving is not as active and alert as he should be to operate properly his automobile. His sensibilities and reactions are dulled and he may not perceive and comprehend dangerous situations as keenly as he might if he had not driven for so long a time.
2. AUTOMOBILES — Action by Guest against Host — Sufficiency of Evidence to Show Contributory Negligence of Guest — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by two guests riding in defendant's car at the time of an automobile accident, the evidence showed that defendant was guilty of violating the statute prohibiting a person from driving more than thirteen hours in twenty-four and was exceeding the speed limit at the time of the accident. Defendant contended that plaintiffs were guilty of contributory negligence in acquiescing in the violations of the statutes and failing to remonstrate against such violations. Plaintiffs had no control over defendant in the operation of the car and their protests were unheeded, defendant assuring them that she was a good and safe driver.
Held: That the burden was on defendant to prove contributory negligence, which she failed to carry.
3. AUTOMOBILES — Action by Guest against Host — Burden of Proving Gross Negligence. — A plaintiff who sues his host for injuries received in an automobile accident must prove that his host has been guilty of gross negligence, and generally the question is one for the jury.
4. AUTOMOBILES — Action by Guest against Host — Sufficiency of Evidence of Gross Negligence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by two guests riding in defendant's car at the time of an automobile accident, defendant was driving through a hard rain on a straight, wet, hard-surfaced road at a speed in excess of the wartime limit, with very poor visibility. She failed to heed the warning of plaintiffs and negligently drove the car off the hard surface on to a soft shoulder. There was an inference that she had driven for a long time without sufficient sleep.
Held: That it was clear that a case for the jury was made as to whether or not defendant was guilty of gross negligence.
5. AUTOMOBILES — Action by Guest against Host — Province of Jury in Determining Fact of Gross Negligence. — It is the province of the jury to consider all of the evidence including the circumstances and surroundings of each case and then ascertain whether the acts and conduct of the host amount to gross negligence.
6. AUTOMOBILES — Action by Guest against Host — Consideration of Separate Acts in Determining Gross Negligence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, an action by two guests riding in defendant's car at the time of an automobile accident, defendant was driving through a hard rain on a straight, wet, hard-surfaced road at a speed in excess of the war-time limit, with very poor visibility. She failed to heed the warning of plaintiffs and negligently drove the car off the hard surface on to a soft shoulder. There was an inference that she had driven for a long time without sufficient sleep.
Held: That the jury had the right to consider each separate act of negligence of defendant and to find from the whole that she was guilty of gross negligence.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Smyth county. Hon. Walter H. Robertson, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
Jones & Woodward, for the plaintiff in error.
Ralph R. Repass and Francis M. Hoge, for the defendants in error.
The record embraces two cases which were tried together before a jury. Verdicts and judgments were rendered for the plaintiffs, Mrs. Lillian R. Cardi, and her daughter, Miss Lucy Cardi, both residents of Cranston, Rhode Island. Mrs. Marie E. Masters, a resident of Los Angeles, California, was the defendant.
Mrs. Masters and her daughter, Mrs. L. L. Meyers, had left their home in California and gone to Davisville, Rhode Island, where Mr. Masters, the husband and father, was stationed as a member of the C.B.'s, the construction battalion of the United States Navy. He was expecting to be sent overseas. While at Davisville, Mrs. Masters and her daughter were employed in the Navy ship service store in order to help pay their expenses. Miss Cardi was also employed at this same place.
Mrs. Masters received a telegram on April 17, 1944, informing her of the death of her father in California, which occurred on the preceding day. However, she wished to be with her husband as long as possible and wired her brother that she would not be there for the funeral. Four days later Mr. Masters was sent overseas. Mrs. Cardi's mother also lived in California, and her son was in a hospital in Abilene, Texas. Miss Cardi arranged for herself and her mother to go with Mrs. Masters and her daughter to California. The trip was planned so that they would pass through Abilene, Texas, which meant that they would go a considerable distance out of the way in order that Mrs. Cardi might visit her son who was in the hospital there. Accordingly, the party left Cranston, Rhode Island, about eleven p.m. on Saturday, April 22, 1944, in a 1939 Plymouth four-door sedan, in good condition, which belonged to Mrs. Masters. In the party were Mrs. Masters, her daughter Mrs. Meyers, Mrs. Lillian Cardi, her daughter Lucy Cardi, and a daughter-in-law of Mrs. Cardi, who is Mrs. Clara Cardi — five persons in all.
Mrs. Masters was in a hurry to get to California in a short time because they were holding the burial of her father for her arrival. She had important papers in her lock box in California to which she had the key. She drove the car from the time they left Cranston, Rhode Island, on Saturday night at eleven p.m. until nine a.m. Sunday morning when she was relieved by Mrs. Clara Cardi, who drove until 12:30 p.m. Sunday, at which time they had reached Philadelphia, where they stopped for midday dinner. After this Mrs. Masters drove again from two p.m. Sunday until about eleven p.m. Sunday night when they reached Staunton, Virginia, where they stopped for the night. The weather was bad when they left Rhode Island, and on Sunday it was quite foggy and raining just a little. On Monday morning at 7:30 the party left Staunton and Mrs. Masters was driving. It was raining very hard and continued to rain all day until the time of the accident which occurred near Atkins, Virginia. The road was very wet. From 7:30 in the morning until about 1:30 in the afternoon Mrs. Masters continued to drive, and her speed was estimated at from 50 to 55 miles an hour during that time. The war-time speed limit which was then in force was 35 miles per hour.
The windows of the car were closed and just before the accident were "all steamed up", and there was considerable smoke in the car due to the fact that three of the occupants had been smoking. The rain was falling so fast and in such large drops that one could scarcely see through the windshield, though the windshield wipers were working. One of the witnesses said, "it was raining so hard it didn't matter whether you had a windshield wiper or not." Another witness said that the windshield wipers did not clear the vision through the windshield. She also said, "The windows were all smoky and you couldn't see where you were going."
About two and a half miles before the scene of accident was reached they overtook and passed a Ford car driven by Garland Hedrick. He was driving 35 miles per hour at the time and was checking his speedometer closely from time to time. After they passed the Hedrick car Mr. Hedrick did not see them again until he noticed the wreck on the side of the road about 30 yards before he reached it.
At the time of the accident the testimony shows that Mrs. Masters was driving from 50 to 55 miles per hour. Mrs. Lillian Cardi warned Mrs. Masters three times on Monday morning between Staunton and the point of accident that she was driving too fast. Mrs. Masters reassured her that nothing was going to happen and stated "don't be afraid." Miss Cardi warned her that she was going too fast just after they left Staunton and again just before the accident, to which Mrs. Masters replied, "Don't worry, I can drive all right."
The highway at the scene of accident is straight and level. The surface of the macadam is about 20 feet wide and there is a smooth shoulder on each side of the highway. On the south side of the highway there is a steep bank some twelve feet high. The right wheels of the defendant's car were driven off the north side of the hard surface on to the shoulder for some eight or ten feet. Then the defendant cut her steering wheel to the left and the car swung sharply to the south side of the highway, climbed part of the way up the 12-foot bank, and ran along the bank in a westerly direction for 47 steps, then rolled over and down the bank and...
To continue reading
Request your trial