By the Court,
This is an action for personal injuries resulting from an automobile upset. From judgment fоr the defendants this appeal is taken by the plaintiffs.
Appellants conсede that the injured party was a guest under NRS 41.180 and that recovery is there denied save where injury was caused by intoxication, willful misconduct or gross negligence. They contend, however, that the record demonstrates that defendants wеre guilty of willful misconduct or gross negligence. The sole question upon this apрeal, directed to that contention, is whether it can be said that such misconduct or negligence has been so clearly established that the minds of reasonable men could not differ upon the issue and that gross negligence or willful misconduct may be said to have been established as a matter of law.
The accident occurred in Clark County, Nevada. The injuries were sustained by apрellant Janet Garland who at the time was the guest of defendant Ruth Greenspan. Mrs. Greenspan was driving an automobile owned by herself and her husband. It was one of six Yolkswagens which, in caravan, were making a pleasure trip from Las Vegаs to Death Valley. At the point of upset the highway, a 2-lane hardtop road, makes a curve to the right. No unusual hazards were presented and the roаd was free of oncoming traffic.
Occupants of three of the other Vоlkswagens testified as eyewitnesses. The details of the manner in which the accident occurred and the speed at which Mrs. Greenspan was driving are in disputе. The findings of the trial court (sitting without jury), are in accordance with the testimony given by аn occupant of the car immediately behind the Greenspan car who was called as a witness by the appellants.
The court found, “that while the said Ruth Greenspan was driving said automobile on Highway 93, traveling in a northwesterly directiоn from Las Vegas, Nevada,
It would thus appear from the facts as found that after passing the Wagner automobile at a speed in excess оf 65 miles an hour and in returning to the right-hand lane in the course of negotiating a curvе to the right, Mrs. Greenspan for some unexplained reason lost control оf her car. We are unable to agree with appellants that these facts establish gross negligence or willful misconduct so conclusively that reasonable men could come to no other conclusion.
Appellants contend that the doctrine of res ipsa loqui-tur provides a supporting inference of negligence under the circumstances. They have cited us no authority to the effect that that doctrine can supply an inference of gross negligence or willfulness.
Appellants contend that gross negligence appears from the рroof of three facts in combination: (1) that Mrs. Greenspan was driving at approximately 80 miles an hour at the time of the accident; (2) that she was an inexperienced driver; (3) that Mrs. Garland had expressed fear at the speed аt which Mrs. Greenspan was driving and had requested that Mrs. Greenspan either slow down or let Mrs. Garland out to continue the trip in another car. Even assuming the evidence to be as appellants contend, there might still be question as to whethеr gross negligence or willfulness as a matter of law can be said to have bеen established. This question
Affirmed with costs.