Mike v. Lian

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
• Writing for the Court: KEPHART, Chief Justice.
• Citation: 185 A. 775
• Decision Date: 26 June 1936
• Parties: MIKE et al. v. LIAN.

185 A. 775

MIKE et al.
v.
LIAN.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 26, 1936.

185 A. 776

Appeals Nos. 237, 238, January term, 1936, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas, Clearfield County; W. Wallace Smith, President Judge.

Trespass for personal injuries by Susie Mike and Charles Mike against Abraham Lian. Judgment for defendant, and separate appeals were taken by plaintiffs.

Affirmed.

Argued before KEPHART, C. J., and SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, and BARNES, JJ.

Lisle D. McCall, of Du Bois, for appellants.

Liveright & Smith, Frank G. Smith, and Robert V. Maine, all of Clearfield, for appellee.

KEPHART, Chief Justice.

Susie Mike and husband brought an action to recover damages for injuries sustained by her in an automobile accident. She was defendant's nonpaying guest in an automobile trip which started from DuBois, Penn. After proceeding into Ohio, a tire blew out causing the auto to upset, resulting in the injuries complained of. It was averred that defendant, the owner and driver, was negligent in operating a car with defective tires. The tire that blew out was over five years old, had never been inspected, and there was testimony to the effect that it was unsafe for travel due to its age and condition. Defendant's request for binding instructions was refused. The jury failed to agree on the issues submitted, and defendant moved for judgment on the whole record which the court ordered. This appeal followed.

The court below determined the criterion of care by the law of Ohio and held that no recovery was permitted on these facts by the law of that state. Its governing statute provides: "The * * * person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for * * * damage arising from injuries to * * * a guest * * * transported without payment therefor * * * resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries * * * are caused by the wilful or wanton misconduct of such * * * person." Page's Ann. Gen. Code, § 6308—6. While the statute refers to "injuries * * * resulting from * * * operation," it was not intended to lay down one measure of care for mere operation or driving and another for the condition of the vehicle causing an accident while in operation. The act covers both. In the absence of proof of its interpretation by the courts of Ohio, it is within our power to do so. Restatement, Conflicts, § 621, comment c. Moreover, it is clear that it is the coalescence of the condition of the tires together with the operation which produced the accident, and, as operation was an efficient cause in producing the injury, the statute must be held to apply.

The Ohio Supreme Court has defined "willful misconduct" and "wanton negligence" in Reserve Trucking Co. v. Fairchild, 128 Ohio St. 519, 191 N.E. 745, 750, stating: "'Willful misconduct' * * * implies the element of intent or purpose to injure. 'Wanton negligence,' on the other hand, implies the failure to exercise any care toward those to whom a duty of care is owing when the probability that harm will result from such failure is great and such probability is actually known to the defendant." Tested by the standard so defined, appellee's conduct was not willful or wanton. The jury could not be permitted to come to any other conclusion and the court below, after determining that the law of Ohio applied, correctly withdrew the question from its consideration.

185 A. 777

There was no error in applying the law of Ohio. The Restatement Conflicts, § 379, states that the law of the place of wrong determines whether a person is responsible for unintended harm. Section 384 (2) reads: "If no cause of action is created at the place of wrong, no recovery in tort can be had in any other state." Our more recent decisions arc in accord with the rule thus stated. Singer v. Messina, 312 Pa. 129, 137, 167 A. 583, 89 A.L. R. 1271; Dickinson v. Jones, 309 Pa. 256, 163 A. 516, 85 A.L.R. 1226; see, also, Young v. Masci, 289 U.S. 253, 258, 53 S. Ct. 599, 77 L.Ed. 1158, 88...