Skillin v. Skillin

• Decision Date: 04 May 1931
• Citation: 154 A. 570
• Parties: SKILLIN v. SKILLIN.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

154 A. 570

SKILLIN

v. SKILLIN.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

May 4, 1931.

Exceptions from Superior Court, York County.

Action by Marion F. Skillin against Harlon L. Skillin. Defendant's motions for nonsuit and dismissal of the case were granted, and plaintiff brings exceptions.

Exceptions sustained, and case restored to the docket of the superior court.

Argued before PATTANGALL, C. J., and DUNN, STURGIS, BARNES, FARRINGTON, and THAXTER, JJ.

Hinckley, Hinckley & Shesong, of Portland, for plaintiff.

Robinson & Richardson, of Portland, and Willard & Willard, of Sanford, for defendant.

THAXTER, J.

This is an action for personal injuries brought by a daughter; against her father. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence the defendant moved for a nonsuit. The motion was granted. The defendant then filed a motion that the case be dismissed from the docket because of fraud and collusion in bringing and in prosecuting the action. This was like wise granted. The case is before us on exceptions to these rulings.

The evidence shows that the plaintiff, who was more than twenty-one years old, was a passenger on the rear seat of an automobile driven by her father. On the front seat was a friend, Dr. Woodworth, and her mother sat on the rear seat with her. Just prior to the accident her father was driving on the left-hand side of the road, on which there was another automobile approaching. He delayed in turning to the right until close to the other car, and then turned so sharply that he lost control of his car, which went off of the road, and overturned. For injuries received the plaintiff has brought suit. She admits that she gave her father no warning of the approaching automobile nor cautioned him that he was driving on the left side of the road.

The defendant contends that the nonsuit was properly ordered, because the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in failing to warn her father, and because this was a joint enterprise and the negligence of the defendant is imputable to her. On neither ground can the nonsuit be sustained. We cannot hold that the failure of a passenger to warn the driver of an automobile under such circumstances as this is negligence as a matter of law. In this jurisdiction the negligence of the driver of an automobile is not imputed to a passenger. It is unnecessary to discuss seeming modifications of this doctrine arising out of the relation of principal and agent, or by reason of a joint control by both occupants over the operation of the car. The facts of this case do not bring it...