Shumaker v. Kline

• Decision Date: 16 May 1952
• Docket Number: No. 54,54
• Citation: 333 Mich. 346,53 N.W.2d 295
• Parties: SHUMAKER v. KLINE.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 295

53 N.W.2d 295

333 Mich. 346

SHUMAKER v.KLINE.

No. 54.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 16, 1952.

V. O. Braun and Kenneth B. Kelly, Owosso, for plaintiff and appellant.

Gault & Davison, Flint, for defendant and appelled L. J. Carey and Geo. J. Cooper, Detroit, of counsel for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

SHARPE, Justice.

This case involves the question of whether plaintiff, John Shumaker, was a passenger for hire or a guest passenger.The essential facts are not in dispute.On December 24, 1949, plaintiff, John Shumaker, lived with his wife and son at Owosso, Michigan.He was employed at the Junedale Market in Flint, Michigan, as a meat cutter.Defendant, Edward Kline, was also employed at the Junedale Market as a meat cutter.

On the day in question the Junedale Market gave a party for its employees, which included plaintiff and defendant.On work days plaintiff traveled from Flint to Owosso on a bus.He usually took the bus leaving Flint at 6:06 p. m. The party at the store lasted until 6:30 p. m. When the party broke up plaintiff asked defendant if he would take him to his home in Owosso, as he did not want to wait for the 9:30 p. m. bus.Defendant agreed to plaintiff's request, stating that he would be glad to do so, as he didn't have anything in particular to do before midnight Mass. Defendant started to take plaintiff to his home in Owosso, and while on the journey his automobile got out of control, resulting in serious injuries to plaintiff.

The case was tried before the court, with a jury being impanelled to try questions of fact.At the close of plaintiff's proofs defendant made a motion for a directed verdict for the reason that plaintiff was a guest passenger.The court took the motion under advisement under the Empson Act, Comp.Laws 1948, §§ 691.691- 691.693, and at the close of all testimony defendant renewed his motion for a directed verdict.

The court again reserved decision on the motion, and submitted the cause to the jury, who, after deliberating, returned a verdict in favor of plaintiff in the sum of $2,750.Subsequently defendant made a motion to enter a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant, notwithstanding the verdict for the plaintiff, for reasons made at close of plaintiff's proofs and renewed at the close of all proofs.The court granted defendant's motion.Plaintiff appeals and urges that the question of whether plaintiff was a guest passenger involved a question of fact which was properly submitted to the jury.

Plaintiff testified:

'That evening we stayed at the store until 6:30 and I could not take my regular bus.The next bus left at 9:30, so I asked Mr. Kline to take me home in his automobile.He said he would take me home.I made the proposal.

'Q.Do you know, and if you do know, give us the exact conversation as near as you can, or the substance of it?A.I just asked if he would take me home because it was late, I did not want to wait that extra time.He said he would.

'Q.What else was said, if anything?A.I told him I would pay him for the ride home.

'Q.What was that?A.I told him I would pay him for the ride home.

'Q.Was anything said about how much you were to pay him?A.No, I gave him a dollar.The bus fare is 86 cents.

'Q.When you gave him the dollar what did he do or say?A.He said, 'O.K.'And we started.

On cross-examination plaintiff testified:

'The party was a store party for all employees.It started at 5 when we closed.We usually closed at 6:00.Due to the party I missed my bus so I couldn't leave until 9:30.It was Christmas Eve and my wife was in Owosso and I wanted to get home sooner than the 9:30 bus would get me there.I knew Mr. Kline had a car.I had driven with him before around town a little.We didn't eat lunch or dinner together very often prior to the accident.We had an occasional glass of beer together but did not visit in our homes.Kline was not married.When the party broke up I asked Mr. Kline if he would be able to take me over to Owosso.He said he would be glad to take me over.He said he didn't have anything in particular to do before midnight Mass.

'Q.So as a friendly gesture, then, Kline was perfectly willing to drive you over to your family on Christmas Eve?A.Yes.After we left the store we went up to (the home of) one of the employees and had something to eat.It was 23 miles to Owosso.The night was clear and the pavement dry.

'Q.Before you left the store down here, after you had made you arrangements to get this ride home, I think you testified that you gave Kline a dollar?A.Yes.

'Q.That was somewhat to reimburse him for gas and oil on that night, driving you 50 miles, there and back, is that right?A.Yes.

'Q.Youmade a friendly gesture, did that the same as Kline made a friendly gesture towards you in taking you over there?A.Yes.'

In Bond v. Sharp, 325 Mich. 460, 39 N.W.2d 37, 39, we said:

'Whether the relationship between parties is that of a guest passenger or a passenger for hire depends upon the facts in each case.It has been held that where the arrangements between the parties are so indefinite and casual that sociability is the dominant element, then a guest relationship exists.SeeIn re Harper's Estate, 294 Mich. 453, 293 N.W. 715;Guiney v Osborn, 295 Mich. 559, 295 N.W. 264;Brody v. Harris, 308 Mich. 234, 13 N.W.2d 273, 155 A.L.R. 573.

It is the general rule that whenever transportation is for the pecuniary benefit of the defendant, the transaction is not gratuitous and a passenger for hire relationship may exist.SeeFoley v. McDonald, 283 Mass. 96, 185 N.E. 926;Bushouse v. Brom, 297 Mich. 616, 298 N.W. 306;Everett v. Burg, 301 Mich. 734[4 N.W.2d 63,...