Vacek v. State
Decision Date | 20 June 1928 |
Docket Number | 31. |
Citation | 142 A. 491,155 Md. 400 |
Parties | VACEK v. STATE, FOR USE OF ROKOS ET AL. |
Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Superior Court of Baltimore City; Walter I. Dawkins Judge.
"To be officially reported."
Action by the State, for the use of Mamie Rokos and others, against Emil Vacek. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
Argued before PATTISON, ADKINS, DIGGES, PARKE, and SLOAN, JJ.
William L. Marbury and Fendall Marbury, both of Baltimore, for appellant.
Daniel S. Sullivan, of Baltimore (S. Scott Kirkley, of Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
The accident for which damages were recovered in this suit occurred while one William C. Vojik was driving an automobile belonging to Emil Vacek, the defendant. The occupants of the automobile were five in number, the driver and Havelick occupying the front seat, and Rokos, Lehicko, and Vacek the rear seat. The accident resulted in the death of Rokos, and the suit is by the state of Maryland, for the use of his widow and two infant children, against Vacek. It occurred while the party were returning from a shore owned by Vacek on Middle river between 12:30 and 2 o'clock in the morning of November 29, 1926. The day before the accident, being Sunday, the occupants of the car had gone (but not together) to Dundalk, a shore resort, Vacek having gone there in his own machine with some other guests, but, except for Havelick not those who were in the machine at the time of the accident. About 7 o'clock that evening one Hoska borrowed the defendant's machine to go back to Baltimore, and Vojik, although he had no operator's license, accompanied Hoska to Baltimore and brought the machine back to Dundalk. About 11 o'clock p. m. the defendant decided to go to his own shore. In the examination of the defendant he was asked:
On cross-examination the defendant said:
The testimony of Vojik was that:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baltimore Transit Co. v. State, to Use of Schriefer
...v. Kres, 147 Md. 23, 127 A. 643; Hooper v. Brawner, 148 Md. 417, 129 A. 672; Brawner v. Hooper, 151 Md. 579, 135 A. 420; Vacek v. State, 155 Md. 400, 142 A. 491; Quarries, Inc., v. Hall, 161 Md. 518, 158 A. 19; Baur v. Calic, 166 Md. 387, 171 A. 713. The cases resolve themselves into two ge......
-
Powers v. State, for Use and Benefit of Reynolds
...occurred, this Court declared that the parties had not embarked upon a joint adventure equally beneficial to all of them. Vacek v. State, 155 Md. 400, 142 A. 491. In later Maryland case, wherein the plaintiff and the defendant had been riding in the defendant's automobile on a trip to drink......
-
Hood v. Azrael
...& R. Neg. § 160; 14 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, p. 745 [1st Ed.]"; Bell v. State, 153 Md. 333, 337, 138 A. 227, 58 A. L. R. 1051; Vacek v. State, 155 Md. 400, 408, 142 A. 491; on Torts (3d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1098. The contractor on the record at bar was engaged in the occupation of hauling for hire w......