Myrtle Lusk v. Ed Lusk et at., (No. 7319)

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtHATCHER, P.
Citation113 W.Va. 17
PartiesMyrtle Lusk v. Ed Lusk et at.
Docket Number(No. 7319)
Decision Date25 October 1932

113 W.Va. 17

Myrtle Lusk
v.
Ed Lusk et at.

(No. 7319)

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted Octoper 11, 1932.
Decided October 25, 1932.


[113 W.Va. 17]

Parent and Child

The rule of parental immunity from an injury to a child will not be extended to a case in which the reason for the rule fails. The syllabus in Securo v. Securo, 110 W. Va. 1, 156 S. E. 750, approved and distinguished.

Error to Circuit Court, Mercer County.

Action by Myrtle Lusk against Ed Lusk and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error.

Reversed; new trial awarded.

Wm. Cody Fletcher and II. E. De Jarnette, for plaintiff in error.

French, Easley, Easley & French, for defendants in error.

Hatcher, President:

This is an action in assumpsit by a school girl, sixteen years of age, to recover damages for personal injuries which she suffered from the alleged negligent operation of a school bus. She would reverse here a directed verdict for defendants below.

The plaintiff is an unemancipated minor residing with her father, the defendant Ed Lusk. He owned the bus and operated it under a contract with the defendant board of edu-

[113 W.Va. 18]

cation to transport the school children along a certain route to and from school. The contract bound him to furnish a "safe conveyance", keep it in "good repair", and "use the greatest care and precaution for the protection and comfort of the pupils transported." He and the board carried an indemnity insurance policy with the defendant Guaranty Company, which insured them against loss and/or expense arising from claims for damages of "any person", except their employees, for bodily injuries, etc., in consequence of an accident attributable to the operation of the bus. The policy contained the usual direct public liability clause in the form prescribed by the state road commission. For copy of the form, see Criss v. Guaranty Co., 105 W. Va 380. 381-2. 142 S. E. 849. Plaintiff was on the bus (front seat) going to school when a rubber water connection on the bus engine burst and permitted the escape of a quantity of steam and hot water, some of which fell on her. This frightened her and she leaped from the bus, breaking her ankle. The original hose water connection had worn out and had been replaced by a section of an old inner tube, and its use is charged as negligence. A dealer in automobile parts stated that the hose is strengthened by cotton fabric, and was of opinion that use of the tube in place of the hose was not safe and was not "in keeping with ordinary practice and prudence". Ed Lusk, called as a witness for plaintiff, said that a regular hose connection would burst too, and from his experience with both hose and inner tube, was of opinion that the tube was as serviceable and as safe as the hose. (This testimony was brought out on the crossexamination of Lusk and for that reason would not preclude the plaintiff.)

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Barlow v. Iblings, No. 52664
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 6, 1968
    ...of Signs v. Signs, 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Borst v. Borst, supra; Wright v. Wright, 229 N.C. 503, 50 S.E.2d 540; Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. 538; Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419, 142 N.W.2d 66; Briere v. Briere (N.H.), 224 A.2d 588; Ertl v. Ertl, 30 Wis.2d 372, 141 N.W.2d 2......
  • Downs v. Poulin
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • January 11, 1966
    ...642, 251 P.2d 149; Signs v. Signs, 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Nudd v. Matsoukas, 7 Ill.2d 608, 131 N.E.2d 525; Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. Page 33 The agreed statement of facts is silent as to insurance, and whether there was insurance, in fact, is not material. Insurance wa......
  • Dzenutis v. Dzenutis, No. 12817
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 1986
    ...concern that family discord will be generated. Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal.3d 914, 922, 92 Cal.Rptr. 288, 479 P.2d 648 (1971); Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 19, 166 S.E. 538 (1932); 2 Harper, James & Gray, Additional considerations that have been mentioned as a basis for the doctrine--the und......
  • Gibson v. Gibson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 25, 1971
    ...capacity (Signs v. Signs (1952) 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Borst v. Borst (1952) 41 Wash.2d 642, 251 P.2d 149; Lusk v. Lusk (1932) 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. 538; Dunlap v. Dunlap, Supra, 84 N.H. 352, 150 A. 905); and against the parent's employer under Respondeat superior for the tort o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Barlow v. Iblings, No. 52664
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • February 6, 1968
    ...of Signs v. Signs, 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Borst v. Borst, supra; Wright v. Wright, 229 N.C. 503, 50 S.E.2d 540; Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. 538; Balts v. Balts, 273 Minn. 419, 142 N.W.2d 66; Briere v. Briere (N.H.), 224 A.2d 588; Ertl v. Ertl, 30 Wis.2d 372, 141 N.W.2d 2......
  • Downs v. Poulin
    • United States
    • Supreme Judicial Court of Maine (US)
    • January 11, 1966
    ...642, 251 P.2d 149; Signs v. Signs, 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Nudd v. Matsoukas, 7 Ill.2d 608, 131 N.E.2d 525; Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. Page 33 The agreed statement of facts is silent as to insurance, and whether there was insurance, in fact, is not material. Insurance wa......
  • Dzenutis v. Dzenutis, No. 12817
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Connecticut
    • July 1, 1986
    ...concern that family discord will be generated. Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal.3d 914, 922, 92 Cal.Rptr. 288, 479 P.2d 648 (1971); Lusk v. Lusk, 113 W.Va. 17, 19, 166 S.E. 538 (1932); 2 Harper, James & Gray, Additional considerations that have been mentioned as a basis for the doctrine--the und......
  • Gibson v. Gibson
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • January 25, 1971
    ...capacity (Signs v. Signs (1952) 156 Ohio St. 566, 103 N.E.2d 743; Borst v. Borst (1952) 41 Wash.2d 642, 251 P.2d 149; Lusk v. Lusk (1932) 113 W.Va. 17, 166 S.E. 538; Dunlap v. Dunlap, Supra, 84 N.H. 352, 150 A. 905); and against the parent's employer under Respondeat superior for the tort o......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT