Thorsness v. Woltman
| Decision Date | 13 November 1936 |
| Docket Number | 30903,30904. |
| Citation | 269 N.W. 637,198 Minn. 270 |
| Parties | THORSNESS v. WOLTMAN (two cases). |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Appeal from District Court, Olmsted County; Vernon Gates, Judge.
Suits by Seth Thorsness and Bertha M. Thorsness against Fred Woltman. From orders denying defendant's motion for judgment or a new trial in each case, defendant appeals.
Orders reversed, with directions.
Syllabus by the Court .
Applying the interpretation of the South Dakota guest passenger statute (Laws 1933, c. 147) to the facts most favorably stated for plaintiffs in the cases at bar, we find that there is nothing in the record to justify a jury in finding that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence within the meaning of that statute as so interpreted.
Stinchfield, Mackall, Crounse, McNally & Moore and Clyde W Fiddes, all of Minneapolis, and A. H. Clemens, of Rochester for appellant.
Wm. B. Richardson and Irving L. Eckholdt, both of Rochester, for respondents.
In suits to recover for personal injuries to plaintiff Bertha M. Thorsness and for the consequent medical expenses of her husband due to an automobile accident which occurred in South Dakota, the plaintiffs had verdicts, and the defendant comes here upon appeals from orders denying his motion for judgment or a new trial in each case.
The case presents for consideration the proper interpretation and application of the so-called guest passenger statute of South Dakota (Laws 1933, c. 147). That statute provides: ‘ No person transferred by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest without payment for such transportation shall have cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury, death or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been caused by the gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct of the owner or operator of such motor vehicle and unless such gross negligence or wilful and wanton misconduct contributed to the injury, death or loss for which the action is brought.’
The sole question presened by this appeal is whether there was sufficient evidence of gross negligence on the part of the defendant to be submitted to the jury. The plaintiff Bertha is the sister-in-law of the defendant. It appears that on the morning of July 3, 1934, the defendant, with his wife and 4 year old child, was riding in the front seat of his automobile, and the plaintiff Bertha M. Thorsness, her 17 year old niece, and 12 year old Kenneth Wetterberg were riding in the back seat. They started out at 5 o'clock in the morning from a friend's home near Arlington, S. D to drive to Parker, in that state, a distance of about 75 miles. They had gone about 60 miles and it was nearly 8 o'clock when the accident occurred. They were traveling upon a regular state highway, graveled, and about 30 feet wide. It had rained some during the morning and was still drizzling at the time of the accident, but the roadway was not slippery or apparently dangerous, though some water was standing in ruts. On each side of the graded portion of the highway was a ditch about 2 feet deep. While the defendant was driving at about 30 miles an hour at a point a quarter of a mile from the place of accident the car swerved to the right. The defendant brought it back into the road. His wife inquired if he was asleep and he said that he was not. He proceeded then for about a quarter of a mile and when the car again swerved to the right he swung it back to the left and then again to the right and it went into the ditch, traveling 50 or 75 feet, where it struck some obstruction, and the plaintiff Bertha M. Thorsness was injured. The defendant did not apply his brakes. After the accident the steering gear was found to be in good condition. There was some evidence that the tracks probably made by defendant's car had zigzagged to the right and left for...
To continue reading
Request your trial