Woolery v. Shearer, 34471
| Decision Date | 28 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 34471,34471 |
| Citation | 332 P.2d 236,53 Wn.2d 156 |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
| Parties | Rex WOOLERY, Individually and as Guardian ad litem of Mary Alice Woolery, his wife, Respondent, v. William SHEARER, a single man, Appellant. |
Splawn & Bounds, Yakima, for appellant.
H. Frank Stubbs, Tacoma, for respondent.
This is a personal injury suit, arising out of a collision which occurred when a pickup truck owned and driven by the defendant collided with a bus on an icy roadway. The plaintiff's wife, who is the defendant's half-sister, was a passenger in the truck and was severely and permanently injured.
The plaintiff sought to show that Mrs. Woolery was a paying passenger and therefore not within the provisions of the guest statute, and the jury so found. Throughout the proceedings, the defendant interjected appropriate motions attacking the sufficiency of the plaintiff's evidence, all of which were denied. He now contends that the court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
Bearing in mind that the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff's contentions, we set forth briefly the facts upon the question of the status of Mrs. Woolery as a passenger in the defendant's vehicle:
The defendant lived with his mother, on a farm owned by her near Buckley, and conducted a dairy business with cattle which he owned. His mother assisted in the business to the extent of writing checks and paying bills, and she in turn had been assisted by Mrs. Woolery. The revenue from the venture was kept in a bank account which the mother and son owned jointly. Sometime before the day of the accident the mother was hospitalized and it was feared that she would soon die. The defendant, during the period of her hospitalization, deposited in the joint account the checks which were received in payment for milk and which were made payable to the mother. He became concerned that he was not handling this matter in a legal manner and asked his banker for advice. The banker advised him to see a lawyer, which he determined to do.
The defendant had discussed with his brother the possibility that his mother might some day need a guardian ad litem or might need to execute a power of attorney, and he had told his brother that if this should become necessary, he would like Mrs. Woolery appointed, as she had more business ability than all the others combined.
On the morning of February 15, 1956, the defendant encountered his mother's physician, who advised him that she was in poor condition, and he decided to see his lawyer immediately. He stopped by his home and found Mrs. Woolery (who lived nearby) visiting his brother. He told her that he was going to see a lawyer in Puyallup about their mother's affairs and invited her to go along. They drove to Puyallup, where the defendant explained his problem to the attorney and was told that his manner of handling his affairs was legal and proper. Mrs. Woolery listened to the conversation but did not participate. On the return trip, the accident occurred.
The defendant testified positively that he had never communicated to Mrs. Woolery his desire that she be appointed their mother's representative if one was needed, and his evidence was uncontradicted. His brother testified that he had heard nothing said on this matter when the defendant invited Mrs. Woolery to go with him to see the attorney.
It is the defendant's position that the potential anticipated benefit which would accrue to the defendant in carrying on his business if Mrs. Woolery were appointed guardian of her mother, or if she were given her power of attorney, does not, as a matter of law, constitute her a paying passenger within the meaning of the statute.
At the time of this accident, the guest statute provided 'No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as an invited guest or licensee, without payment for such transportation, shall have cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injuries, death, or loss, in case of accident, unless such accident shall have been intentional on the part of said owner or operator: Provided, That this section shall not relieve any owner or operator of a motor vehicle from liability while the same is being demonstrated to a prospective purchaser.' Laws of 1937, chapter 189, § 121, p. 911. [cf. RCW 46.08.080.]
In construing this statute, we have held that payment need not necessarily be made in money. It is sufficient if the presence of the occupant directly compensates the operator or owner in a substantial and material or business sense as distinguished from mere social benefit or nominal or incidental contribution to expenses. McUne v. Fuqua, 42 Wash.2d 65, 253 P.2d 632; Hayes v. Brower, 39 Wash.2d 372, 235 P.2d 482, 25 A.L.R.2d 1431.
The benefit accruing to or conferred...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Ely, 30032
...or incidental contribution to expenses' of the trip. Scholz v. Leuer, 1941, 7 Wash.2d 76, 109 P.2d 294, 299; Woolery v. Shearer, 1958, 53 Wash.2d 156, 332 P.2d 236, 238; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stitzle, supra, 1942, 220 Ind. 180, 185, 41 N.E.2d 133; Lee Brothers v. Jones, 1944, 114 Ind.App......
-
Ackerman v. Terpsma, 39228
...guest, followed by an act which manifests an intent to proceed with the journey. Similarly, our holding in Woolery v. Shearer, 53 Wash.2d 156, 159, 332 P.2d 236, 238 (1958), is relevant to the case at The mere hope of obtaining a benefit, uncommunicated to the passenger, is not a sufficient......
-
Nogosek v. Truedner, 34920
...632; Peterson v. Thorvaldsen, 1954, 45 Wash.2d 376, 274 P.2d 844; Nielson v. Harkoff, 1955, 47 Wash.2d 205, 287 P.2d 95; Woolery v. Shearer, Wash.1958, 332 P.2d 236. In the instant case, by answering interrogatory No. 3 in the affirmative, the jury found only the existence of the first requ......