Vecchio v. Vecchio, 25685.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Ohio
• Writing for the Court: STEPHENSON
• Citation: 1 N.E.2d 624,131 Ohio St. 59
• Parties: VECCHIO v. VECCHIO.
• Docket Number: No. 25685.,25685.
• Decision Date: 22 April 1936

131 Ohio St. 59
1 N.E.2d 624

VECCHIO
v.
VECCHIO.

No. 25685.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

April 22, 1936.

Error to Court of Appeals, Cuyahoga County.

Action by Ignazia Vecchio against Santina Vecchio, wherein defendant filed a demurrer which was sustained by the Common Pleas Court, and, to review a judgment of the Court of Appeals which reversed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas and remanded the case to that court, defendant brings error.-[Editorial Statement.]

Judgment of Court of Appeals reversed and that of Court of Common Pleas affirmed.

[1 N.E.2d 624]

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Section 6308-6, General Code (115 Ohio Laws, p. 57), effective June 15, 1933, known as the ‘Guest Statute,’ completely abrogates the liability of an owner, operator, or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle to a guest while being transported without payment therefor, for damages for injury or death, excepting where such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner, or person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle.

2. In an action for damages for personal injury instituted by a guest against the operator of a motor vehicle, under favor of section 6308-6, General Code, such guest must plead facts that reveal on their face the element of willfulness or wantonness, else such pleadings are demurrable. Universal Concrete Pipe Co. v. Bassett, 130 Ohio St. 567, 200 N.E. 843, approved and followed.

3. In such action the guest must plead unequivocally that the operator of the motor vehicle had knowledge of existing conditions; otherwise no liability is fixed.

4. In such action, wherein it is alleged that the operator of the motor vehicle insecurely fastened the door thereto, put the motor vehicle in motion, and drove it at an excessive rate of speed around a sharp turn to the left, whereby the guest was thrown against the door, causing it to open, and precipitating the guest to the ground, causing injury, a failure to allege unequivocally that prior to the accident the operator of the motor vehicle had knowledge of the fact that such door was insecurely fastened renders the guest's petition defective, and a general demurrer thereto is properly sustained.

On March 14, 1933, the General Assembly of the state of Ohio passed section 6308-6, General Code (115 Ohio Laws, p.

[1 N.E.2d 625]

57), known as the ‘Guest Statute,’ which reads as follows:

‘The owner, operator or personsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the wilful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner or person responsible for the operation of said motor vehicle.’

This section of the General Code became effective June 15, 1933.

On August 25, 1934, Ignazia Vecchio, defendant in error here, filed her amended petition against Santina Vecchio, plaintiff in error, which amended petition is in the words and figures following:

‘On the 22nd day of February, 1934, one James Vecchio was the owner of a certain Chevrolet automobile; that on said day, Santina Vecchio, the defendant herein, with the consent of said James Vecchio, was authorized to, and was operating said Chevrolet automobile; and that on said day, this plaintiff was invited by said defendant to become a guest and a passenger in said automobile; that said plaintiff entered said automobile and was requested by the defendant to occupy the right side of the front seat in said automobile; plaintiff says that after she had occupied the right front seat, all as aforesaid, the defendant then and there, in closing the door of said automobile adjacent to the seat where said plaintiff was seated, carelessly and negligently failed to properly and securely close and fasten said door; that she, the plaintiff, did not know, nor in the exercise of care on this plaintiff's part, could know of the aforesaid negligent omission of the defendant, nor anticipate the danger incident to the occupancy of said seat, and of the unfastened condition of the said door, while the said automobile was in operation.

‘And so plaintiff further says that after the said negligent closing of said door, all as aforesaid, the...