Wachtel v. Bloch, 21343.

• Decision Date: 04 September 1931
• Docket Number: No. 21343.,21343.
• Citation: 160 S.E. 97,43 Ga.App. 756
• Parties: WACHTEL v. BLOCH.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

43 Ga.App. 756

160 S.E. 97

WACHTEL

v.BLOCH.

No. 21343.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 1.

Sept. 4, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

One riding by invitation, and gratuitously in another's automobile cannot recover for injury caused by the other's negligence in driving, unless it amounted to gross negligence. The facts of this case bring it strictly within this rule.

Error from City Court of Macon; C. H. Hall, Judge.

Action by Mrs. Gus Wachtel against E. H. Bloch. Judgment was for defendant, andplaintiff's motion for new trial was overruled, and plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Jones, Jones, Johnston & Russell and Charles M. Cork, all of Macon, for plaintiff in error.

Harris, Harris & Popper, of Macon, for defendant in error.

LUKE, J.

Mrs. Gus Wachtel sued Earl H. Bloch for damages alleged to have been sustained by her while riding with him in his automobile as his invited guest. The jury found for the defendant, and the exception here is to the judgment overruling the motion for a new trial.

The substance of the evidence shedding light upon the questions to be considered appears from the following statement: Prior to and at the time of the accident, the plaintiff was the defendant's invited guest, riding with him on the rear seat of his automobile. Milton Fried, the only other member of the party, was the defendant's friend, and was driving the car at his request. The road being traversed was an unpaved country road, winding, somewhat hilly, and containing many small wooden bridges. The automobile was traveling at a rate of speed somewhere between thirty-five and forty miles an hour. It was equipped with a device to make it ride more easily "by giving it more swing." The accident occurred at a point a few miles from the city of Macon, at the foot of a hill where the road joined a wooden bridge. Fried was an experienced driver and had traveled this road before.

Fried testified in part as follows: "We knew the device would give the car much easier riding by giving it more swing. * * * Mr. Bloch asked me to do the driving. * * * The road leading to that bridge is down hill, with a right-hand curve, * * * and turning slightly to the left. * * * I think the bump occurred just as we were entering the bridge. * * * Before this accident occurred, Mrs. Wachtel had made some comment about the way I was driving. Mrs. Wachtel said: 'Slow down.' She was afraid she was going to get hurt, and I answered I knew how to drive and would take care of her. At the time the car was being driven around thirty-five or forty miles an hour. * * * When the accident occurred I was travelling around the same rate of speed. * * * That is a regular dirt road. It is sand-clay, with a good deal of rocks. * * * As I came upon that bridge, there was a swinging of the car. We were going down a hill approaching a bridge."

We next quote briefly from the testimony of the defendant: "As we got to the dirt road, she told Mr. Fried not to drive so fast, she was nervous. * * * I think he said: 'I can drive a car all right; I am not going to hurt you.' * * * I don't know how many times Mrs. Wachtel suggested he should reduce his speed, but I think it was once or twice. * * * I don't know whether it was more or not. On front of the back seat there is a bar. When this bump hit, I grabbed the bar. * * * I gave no direction to Mr. Fried about how to drive. He was an expert driver so far as I knew."

The following is a part of the testimony of the plaintiff: "I repeatedly requested, and, in fact, insisted that afternoon that Mr. Fried should drive slowly * * * Mr. Fried remarked that he knew how to drive * * * and would certainly take care of me. Mr. Fried reduced the speed of the car at certain times when I asked him to, but then, of course, he drove the car faster. * * * There were quite a...