Trieloff v. Robb

• Decision Date: 05 March 1932
• Docket Number: 2936.
• Citation: 8 P.2d 956,54 Nev. 120
• Parties: TRIELOFF v. ROBB.
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court

8 P.2d 956

54 Nev. 120

TRIELOFF v. ROBB.

No. 2936.

Supreme Court of Nevada

March 5, 1932

Appeal from District Court, Washoe County; Thomas F. Moran, Judge.

Action by Amelia Trieloff against Clement D. Robb. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

N. J Barry, of Reno, for appellant.

Green & Lunsford, of Reno, for respondent.

SANDERS J.

The appellant, Amelia Trieloff, sued the respondent, Clement D Robb, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by her while riding with him in his automobile as his invited guest. Respondent interposed a general demurrer to appellant's complaint, which was sustained. Appellant elected to stand on her complaint whereupon, on motion, judgment of dismissal of her action was entered, from which judgment she appeals.

In the complaint, as amended, for cause of action it was alleged that on January 6, 1929, the defendant, at the city of Reno in Washoe county, Nev., invited plaintiff to ride with him in his automobile as his guest; thereupon they proceeded in defendant's automobile along the public highway from Reno to Verdi; that there was no snow on the ground at Reno, but at Verdi there was a little snow and the highway was becoming slick and icy in places; that plaintiff feared if they proceeded up the Truckee River Canyon west of Verdi the highway would become more and more slippery and dangerous that the 6th day of January, 1929, was a Sunday; that plaintiff had heard there was danger on Sunday of meeting automobiles driven by drunken drivers on the highway between Verdi and Truckee; that when they reached Verdi plaintiff, because of her fears, as aforesaid, insisted that defendant turn his automobile around and return to the city of Reno, and then and there stated to defendant that she was afraid of the highway on Sunday and strenuously insisted that defendant not travel the road, but that he immediately turn his automobile around and return to Reno, where the roads were less dangerous; that plaintiff was very much in earnest in demanding that defendant turn his automobile around at Verdi and return to Reno; that she begged and implored the defendant not to go up the road and explained to him her fears, but that defendant treated her request as a joke and flippantly refused and treated her request in a light and frivolous manner, his reply thereto being, "Applesauce"; that he proceeded to drive on the highway to a point at the west end of a bridge that crosses the Truckee river immediately west of Verdi; that as the automobile passed the west end of the bridge they observed a car coming in a northeasterly direction toward the bridge at a furious rate of speed on the left-hand side of the road; that defendant immediately shifted his automobile into second gear and forced it as far as possible to the extreme right-hand side of the road; that defendant had a horn on his automobile in good workable condition; that defendant negligently failed and neglected to blow said horn so as far as possible to give the driver of the oncoming car warning of the presence of his car; that defendant had plenty of time to have blown his horn so as to have called the attention of the driver of the approaching car to the presence of defendant's car and in time for the former to have avoided a collision; that the driver of the approaching car was drunk and took no notice of defendant's car and crashed into it, striking the same on the left front portion thereof and almost completely demolishing it; that in the collision plaintiff's neck was fractured, causing a partial paralysis from which plaintiff has never recovered and which injury left plaintiff with a stiff neck that gives her constant pain from pressure on the spinal cord of plaintiff's body; that plaintiff was badly scarred on her head and face, and that her face was permanently disfigured; that plaintiff had no control over defendant's car and was in no wise responsible for its management or the course that defendant took in driving his car; that plaintiff was led to believe that the drive was being taken solely for the pleasure it would give plaintiff, and for no other object or purpose; that the injuries inflicted upon plaintiff, as aforesaid, were not the result of any negligence on her part, but were caused by the concurrent negligence of the drunken driver and the want of reasonable care on the part of the defendant, which he owed the plaintiff as his guest, and by defendant's negligence in refusing to...