Wilde v. Griffel
| Decision Date | 24 June 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 41402.,41402. |
| Citation | 243 N.W. 159,214 Iowa 1177 |
| Parties | WILDE v. GRIFFEL ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Buena Vista County; F. C. Davidson, Judge.
Action at law to recover damages for personal injuries by reason of an automobile accident, based on the reckless operation of the car driven by the defendant-appellee Albert Griffel. The petition alleges, and the defendants admit, the guest status of the appellant, but deny generally all other allegations of the petition.
The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants and entered judgment accordingly. The plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.Charles E. Pendleton, of Storm Lake, for appellant.
Whitney, Whitney & Stern, of Storm Lake, for appellees.
DE GRAFF, J.
The plaintiff-appellant Emil Wilde is the father of a minor, Henry Wilde, 18 years old, who was injured in an automobile accident at about 11:30 p. m. on the 21st day of March, 1931. The automobile was operated by the defendant-appellee Albert Griffel on a public highway in Buena Vista county. The car, a Ford model A, was owned by the defendant Henry Griffel, father of Albert. In said car at said time and place were companions of the defendant Albert Griffel, including his brother and sister and one Albert Beckfield.
This action is predicated on section 5026-b1, Code 1927. The answer of the defendants was in effect a general denial. Upon the conclusion of all the testimony, the trial court sustained a directed verdict for the defendants. The correctness of this ruling is the only proposition involved on this appeal, and in the appellant's brief, under the caption “errors relied upon for a reversal,” it is said: “The only point relied on for the reversal of this case by the appellant is that the court erred in sustaining the motion for a directed verdict on the ground that there was no recklessness shown on the part of the appellees that would entitle a verdict to stand if one were returned in favor of the plaintiff.”
It may be well to point out specifically the topography of the situation at the time of the accident. The highway in question met an intersecting east and west highway at right angles, and the north-south highway did not continue south of the intersection with the east-west road. Due to the failure of Albert Griffel, the driver, to make a turn either to the east or west, the accident occurred by the car running into the ditch on the south side of the intersection.
The plaintiff's petition is bottomed on the ground of recklessness, in that the car was being operated at a high and dangerous rate of speed. The only witness who testified as to how the accident happened was plaintiff's son, Henry Wilde. His testimony is undisputed that the car was being operated between 30 and 35 miles per hour. The accident in question occurred on a graveled highway, and the car was traveling in a southerly direction. The other grounds of recklessness were substantially that the defendant-driver, Albert Griffel, failed to slow down, failed to have the car under control, and failed to keep a proper lookout for the end or turn of the north-south highway. The record discloses that the plaintiff's son, Henry Wilde, was sitting in the front seat of the Griffel car and beside the driver, Albert Griffel. We deem it important to set out the cross-examination of Henry Wilde:
“Q. You saw that the road didn't turn before you came to it didn't you, Henry? A. Yes.
Q. How far back? A. Not over a hundred feet.
Q. Did you call the driver's attention to it? A. No.
Q. You didn't say anything about it? A. I didn't have no chance.
Q. The truth and the matter is, Henry, you were so close to where the road ended when you saw it you didn't have time to speak, did you? A. That is right.
Q. Whether it was ten feet, fifty feet or one hundred feet you don't know, do you? A. No.
Q. But after you observed that the road stopped going south and it turned east and it turned west you were so close you didn't have to say ‘Albert, we turn’ did you? A. Yes.
Q. You didn't have time to say that before you went off the embankment? A. No.
Q. So you didn't observe the road ahead in time to tell him about slowing up the car, did you? A. No.
Q. Albert was looking and you were looking in the same direction weren't you? A. Yes.
Q. And the other boy in the front seat was looking in the same direction? A. He was.
Q. You weren't scuffling in there? A. No.
Q. Everybody was tending to his own business? A. Yes.
Q. And he (Albert Griffel) was driving very carefully, wasn't he? A. Yes.”
[1] It is undisputed that the occupants of the car did not discover the corner until they were within a short distance of it. It is undisputed that they were within 100 feet or less from the corner when it was discovered, and that the plaintiff's son, Henry Wilde, had no time to warn the driver in order to avoid the accident after becoming aware of the corner. From the point of the discovered danger there is no evidence of what occurred, except that the car...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hartman v. Kruse
...We have said 'The evidence must disclose something from which recklessness could be legitimately inferred, * * *.' Wilde v. Griffel, 214 Iowa 1177, 1180, 243 N.W. 159, 160; Goetsch v. Matheson, 246 Iowa 800, 806, 68 N.W.2d However, in order that the action and conduct of the driver of a car......
-
Hebert v. Allen
...purported to follow the rule set down in the Siesseger case.' (Italics supplied.) [41 N.W.2d 245] This court said in Wilde v. Griffel, 214 Iowa 1177, 1180, 1181, 243 N.W. 159, 160, that the plaintiff must show some act which would be pronounced as an utter indifference to the safety of the ......
-
Goodman v. Gonse, 48883
...223 Iowa 573, 272 N.W. 645. The evidence must disclose something from which recklessness could be legitimately inferred. Wilde v. Griffel, 214 Iowa 1177, 243 N.W. 159; Wright v. What Cheer Clay Prod. Co., 221 Iowa 1292, 267 N.W. 92. It is the general rule in this state that in matters of pr......
-
Tucker v. Heaverlo
...and not a probability on the question of whether the driver is acting in conscious disregard of danger.' The cases of Wilde v. Griffel, 214 Iowa 1177, 243 N.W. 159, and Tomasek v. Lynch, 233 Iowa 662, 10 N.W.2d 3, are cited as authority for the holding that where the driver does not have co......