Mitrovich v. Pavlovich
| Decision Date | 01 July 1941 |
| Docket Number | 3320. |
| Citation | 114 P.2d 1084,61 Nev. 62 |
| Parties | MITROVICH v. PAVLOVICH. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appeal from Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County; Wm McKnight, Judge.
Personal injury action by Chris Mitrovich against Steve Pavlovich. From an adverse judgment and from an order denying a motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
William M. Kearney and Robert Taylor Adams, both of Reno, for appellant.
Harlan L. Heward, of Reno, for respondent.
This is an action for damages for injuries received in an automobile accident, which automobile was owned and operated by respondent and in which appellant was riding as a guest at the time of the accident. The complaint charges respondent with being guilty of wilful misconduct. The action was tried by the court without a jury, and the trial resulted in a judgment that appellant take nothing by his complaint. His appeal is from the judgment and order denying his motion for a new trial. The court found as follows:
(1) On April 6, 1939, Chris Mitrovich, the plaintiff, and Sam Armanko and Daisy Midzor accompanied the defendant as his guest in his twelve cylinder Lincoln Zephyr automobile on a pleasure trip from Reno, Nevada, to Susanville, California, to visit a mutual friend. The defendant and Daisy Midzor sat in the front seat and the plaintiff and Sam Armanko sat in the rear seat. Daisy Midzor drove the car from Reno to a point in California some distance beyond the state line, when the defendant took the wheel. The change of drivers was made at the request of defendant. Defendant's experience in the operation of an automobile consisted in his having previously driven his car on two occasions from his home at 1019 Riverside Drive to the Grand Central Garage, a distance of approximately one mile at a speed of not over twenty-five miles. The defendant had never before driven any car on the public highway, nor had he ever applied for a driver's license. At the time of taking the wheel the defendant did not advise the plaintiff that he was an inexperienced driver.
(2) The defendant drove the car a few miles, the exact number not being definitely shown, at a speed of approximately fifty miles per hour, without any objection or protest from the plaintiff or either of the other guests. Suddenly the right wheels of the car ran off the paved surface of the highway the car skidded along the right shoulder for a short distance, then in a diagonal direction across the pavement and along the left shoulder for a short distance, and then left the highway and crashed into a fence tearing loose some five posts, situated eight or ten feet apart.
(3) The accident happened about 10:30 o'clock in the morning on a clear day, about two miles south of Doyle, in Lassen County, California. The highway at the place of the accident, was level and straight for a considerable distance each way, and was perfectly dry. No cars, or other obstructions of any kind interfered with the vision of the driver. At the time of taking the wheel the defendant knew that there was risk in driving the car with his lack of experience, and that it was dangerous for him to do so, in the sense that there is always the possibility of an accident, but he did not think about that phase of the matter. He believed that he could control the car, and he wanted to learn to drive. He intentionally took the wheel and drove the car, and he did not do so with knowledge or appreciation of the fact that danger was likely to result therefrom or that injury to his guests would be a probable result thereof. He did not drive the car with a wanton or reckless disregard to its possible result, or with a positive, active, and absolute disregard of its possible consequences. The driving of the car was not done under such circumstances as would justify the reasonable inference that he should have known that injury to his guests was a possible result. The defendant never thought that the car would get out of his control, or that an accident would happen, or that anyone would get hurt. The defendant exercised his best skill and judgment in driving the car and in attempting to get it back on the paved highway after the wheels ran off, and did everything within his power to avoid an accident.
Findings 4 and 5 set out the extent of the injuries sustained, the expenses...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Duty v. East Coast Tender Service, Inc.
...Perry v. Richerson, 3 Ill.App.2d 338, 122 N.E.2d 75 (1954); Davis v. Gordon, 183 Md. 129, 36 A.2d 699 (1944); Mitrovich v. Pavlovich, 61 Nev. 62, 114 P.2d 1084 (1941); Ross v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 106 N.J.L. 536, 148 A. 741 (1930); Dervin v. Frenier, 91 Vt. 398, 100 A. 760 (1917); Hersman v......
-
Hardwick v. Bublitz
...nor does it constitute knowledge on the part of Dean of existing danger or of danger of which he should be cognizant. Mitrovich v. Pavlovich, 61 Nev. 62, 114 P.2d 1084. II. Plaintiff pleaded, in separate divisions, defendants Harold and Lucille knowingly permitted Dean to drive without havi......
-
Lightenburger v. Gordon
...disregard of the probable consequences.' The Appellants argue that the law of the State of California is applicable. Mitrovich v. Pavlovich, 61 Nev. 62, 114 P.2d 1084; Geller v. McCown, 64 Nev. 102, 177 P.2d 461, 178 P.2d 380. The Respondents did not answer to this proposition and we adopt ......
-
Southern Pacific Transp. Co. v. United States
...and, most recently, a plane crash, in which the court faced choice of law questions. The first of these decisions is Mitrovich v. Pavlovich, 61 Nev. 62, 114 P.2d 1084 (1941). Plaintiff-Mitrovich had accompanied the defendant and two others on a pleasure trip from Nevada into California to v......