delivered the opinion of the court.
George Edward Pickett Kent, defendant in the trial court, Miss Wright, subsequently Mrs. Kent, and Annie Miller, the plaintiff in the trial court, formed a party on the even
The moving spirit of the party was the plaintiff for she went to Miss Wright’s apartment and had Miss Wright call Kent over the phone for the purpose of having him drive them in his car to the place of rendezvous.
As' a fit initiatory step toward the hilarity to follow, Kent and Miss Miller tоok a drink from Kent’s bottle at the home of Miss Wright’s sister in Richmond. The three sitting on the front seat of Kent’s practically new Chevrolet sedan, Kent being under the wheеl, Miss Wright sitting next to him and Miss Miller at the right hand door of the sedan,' drove to a filling station outside of Richmond. Kent and Miss Wright said that their visit to the filling station was for the declared рurpose of purchasing a pint of liquor and that Kent and Miss Miller again regaled themselves by taking a drink. This is denied by Miss Miller and under the circumstances of the cаse, to be referred to later, her version of the affair must be accepted. From this filling station they drove to the club where they remained until after midnight еnjoying the gayeties which the place afforded. And here the parties aré again at variance as to the drinking feature of the evening, Kent and Miss Wright sаying that they drank at frequent intervals, and Miss Miller alleging that they only took one drink and that she did not consume all of hers.
They left the club sometime after midnight taking the same positions in the automobile on the return trip to Richmond as they had occupied before. Their course to Richmond took them over the Rivеrside Drive, on which are three curves, the third being a severe one where they made a left-hand turn negotiating a curve which formed an angle greatеr than a right angle. Approaching this curve from the club, there is a considerable down-grade some 400 feet in length, and the road along this part of it is bumpy аnd uneven.
It is not clear from Miss Miller’s testimony just where she left the car—whether it wаs on the curve at the time or beyond.
Mrs. Kent and Air. Kent testified positively and definitely on this point. They said that when Miss Aliller went out of the car they were as much аs two city blocks beyond the curve and that Mr. Kent stopped his automobile at once and both of them went around to the rear of the car and in twо feet of it, they found Miss Miller lying on the ground. This portion of the testimony for the defendant is uncontradicted for A'íiss Miller stated that her fall out of the car is the last thing thаt she remembered.
Aliss Miller was assisted into the automobile and they continued on their way to Richmond. Subsequently Miss Miller was removed to a hospital where it developed that she was painfully and severely injured.
But as we view the case it is unnecessary to go further into detail as to the evidence.
Suit was instituted by Miss Miller against Kent which resulted in a verdict for her of $3,000, which was sustained by the trial court.
It must all the while be borne in mind that Miss Miller was a guest in the car of Air. Kent and in order to recover the burden was upon her to estabilsh gross negligence as to him.
As was aptly said in the petition there is no such
Boggs v. Plybon,
In the Young v. Dyer, supra, case this court said:
“A mere failure to skillfully operate an automobile under all conditions or to be alert and observant and to act intelligently and operate an automobile at a low rаte of speed may, or may not, be a failure to do what an ordinary prudent person would have done under the circumstances, and thus amount to lаck of ordinary care; but such lack of attention and diligence, or mere inadvertence, does not amount to wanton or reckless conduct, or constitute culpable negligence for which defendant would be responsible to an invited guest.”
In that case (Young v. Dyer, supra), the defendant’s car left the road and turned ovеr as a result of being driven around the curve at an excessive rate of speed, yet this court held that that did not constitute such gross negligence as wоuld make a host liable to his guest.
It will be noted that in the case we are considering the automobile did not leave the road, did not turn over, did not skid. The only alleged unusual happening was the opening •of the right hand front door. The next morning the car was ■examined by an expert (Birchett) who testified that it was in exсellent condition, that the door fitted properly from top to bottom, that the latches and lock worked properly, that “it is impossible for that dоor to come open unless the latch is opened, because the latch sinks very deeply into the little plate that it sinks into—catches.”
The case of Williams v. Lumpkin,
“The only evidence to sustain the contention that the rate of sрeed caused the door to come open was that, when the car suddenly swerved, the door came open. But any such swerve as shown in this reсord, even at the highest speed any witness testified to, would not cause a latched door of a modern automobile of the sedan type to сome open. Such a swerve, however, would cause an unlatched door to come open.”
So we think the plaintiff, Miss Miller, has utterly failed to еstablish the necessary fact that Kent was guilty of gross negligence.
Concede that the door of the car came open as described by Miss Miller, still it is not an incident or event which could have been foreseen by a reasonably prudent person as likely to happen if the door were latched. If it were not lаtched it was the omission or fault of Miss Miller, who got in the car on that side after Kent and Miss Wright had taken their seats. Fowlkes v. Southern Ry. Co.,
Aside from this, however, the plaintiff gives an account of the accident which is incredible. It is impossible to drive an automobile around a 95 degree curve going at 45 or 50 miles an hour without turning over or going off the road or skidding or some such untoward thing. This is a matter of common knowledge and courts will take judicial notice of it. This court has so said in the case оf Fagg v. Carney,
It was held in the case of Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Crowe’s Adm’x,
It follows from what we have said that we reverse the judgment of the trial court and enter final judgment for the defendant.
Reversed.