*1 papers taken, front him. all the When burdening lawyers well without decision, in and the court at letters, arrived his necessity with the reading apparently disintegrated, subject filial affection action, paying of this for their Ranquist took himself out publiсation Sys- Brother Harold Reporter in the National withdrawing from it. this case tem. here, Stanley Ranquist, litigant Brother good attorney in
promptly employed another CROCKETT, CALLISTER, J., and C. him standing, just promptly fired ELLETT, JJ., concur. TUCKETT and days Ranquist took over ten later. about se,” few skir- “pro and after a
the case court, personally the trial
mishes court. to this area of combat
moved say gentleman, this it to
Suffice just, just was cause to him seems whose P. 2d702 seeking saying in his brief error in This, get just it. quick justice, he didn’t MUKASEY, Appellant, Plaintiff and Michael period, had, four-year seems after he over justice effectively рrevented the to have AARON, S. Defendant Robert Respondent. indulging in a justify, by he seeks to
which maneuvers, delaying paper-strewn series No. 11008. ad- amendments, involving demands Supreme of Utah. Court missions, interrogatories, and dozens this, it reason all belies doing In others. March jus- denial of claimed conclude himself. engendered by others tice it, record, pages of
This —is —over he justice travesty on aof
somewhat
claims. had may may not have
Ranquist Ap- breach of contract.
complaint based on resolved, but at matter was
parently this ap- urged on this has not been rate point of libel
peal. appeal His on the sole fatuous, and we decide
seems somewhat
Rawlings, Wallace, Black, Roberts & Dibblee, Richard C. City, Salt Lake plaintiff appellant. and n Bayle, Lauchnor, Hurd & R. Wallace Lauchnor, City, Salt Lake for defendant respondent. and TUCKETT, Justice. plaintiff
The commenced this action personal injuries recover for arising out of an automobile At time of accident. granted the lower court a sum- mary judgment in favor of the defendant against and plaintiff. plaintiff
The awas resident of the State of New York and defendant was a Jersey. resident of New The college During students and friends. they summer of deсided to travel to- gether to the western of the United employment States to seek and to see OQK working jobs in After at various Company, West. the plaintiff and the defendant Colorado, plain- and proceeded states of Utah way on toward California. proceed to tiff defendant decided to The agreed and the defendant visit brother. they California to with defendant’s expenses would share of the auto- They proceeded city to the of Denver where they mobile and that share they the Atlantic-Pacific Drive- driving Angeles. contacted automobile to Los Aways Company which had an automobile leaving they proceeded After Denver Angeles, place Utah, thеy be driven to Los California. Huntington, near where Mukasey signed a contract with com- slept following night. in the car over pany deposit pursuant and made morning the defendant $25 drove automo- the terms of the The owner of they proceeded contract. bile way. their sunny automobile was Felix Com- day Chevrolet weather was clear was California, pany Angeles, of Los Visibility good. and warm. theAs Drive-Aways Denver, Company at approached Colo- defendant the left curve to rado, agent speed owner in se- approximately per at a 50 miles curing a driver to take the automobile hour the left highway automobile provisions California. One of overturned. Both and defend- *3 by plaintiff the injured. contract entered ant were It appears into that ac- the as follows: cident because occurred either the defend- sharpness ant the failed to observe the of agreed
I have the car to drive owner’s that he curve or failed the to slow auto- alone, pick up pas- that I and will not sufficiently permit mobile the to curve to hitchhikers, sengers, etc., will I use nor negotiated be safety. towing purposes. said cаr for trucking or The pretrial court at the time had of the plaintiff The claims that the de depositions it the plaintiff before the of and fendant guilty of willful misconduct in the defendant which the contained testi- approaching speеd the curve at a of 50 mony parties of the which been would have per maintaining prop miles hour without a jury upon submitted to the court or to a failing er lookout and in to observe that the trial testimony of the case. The the of negotiated curve could not be at that rate parties essentially is without conflict. speed.1 of plaintiff
After possession the had taken The trial opinion court was of the that of the automobile from the Drive-Aways the еvidence favorably most construed in plaintiff 1. In the trial Statute), court tlie inapplicable, viz., advanced (1) that the two guilty contentions which he claimed made defendant was of willful misconduct 41-9-1, (The Section operation U.C.A.1953 automobile; Guest of the and 38.6 the are essential to establish- position would ments which plaintiff’s
support! the of enterprise joint ment of a follows: guilty of that the defendant was not show negligence, further simple more a elements which are essential to The issue willful miscon- that there was no of enterprise commonly be joint are stated to jury. a With we duct submit to this agreement, express im- (1) four: an agree. plied, among group; the members of the purpose
(2) a
be
common
carried out
contends
plaintiff
further
The
by
group;
(3)
pe-
of
community
engaged
were
and the defendant
that he
cuniary
among
purpose,
interest
in that
negligence
enterprise,
that
joint
in a
members;
equal
(4)
right
an
oрeration
in
part of defendant
enterprise,
voice in the direction of the
plaintiff
entitles
the motor vehicle
of
gives
equal right
which
an
of control.
showing
willful
recovery without a
of
opinion
that the evi
are of
are
accord with
We
misconduct. We
in
favorably in
dence
viewed most
engaged
of
parties
if the
record
general rule that
were
that
behalf
would not show
relationship
enterprise that
joint
in a
parties
joint
engaged
were
enter
from
he sufficient to remove
case
prise.
testimony
show
would at most
provisions
are
of the
statute. We
parties
agreed
had
to travel
in accord with the
that where
also
rule
purpose
seeking
em
California fоr
relationship
existence of the
issue
an
ployment;
purpose
seeing
for the
question
is one of fact to be deter
states;
western
jury
mined
the court or the
as finder of
visiting friends
The evi
and relatives.
At the
fact.
of the
time
object
dence fails to
show that
testimony of the witnesses was before the
pur
a common business
journey involved
court.
pecuniary inter
pose
that a financial or
joint
relationship
enter
to show
which is essential
est was involved
by way
engaged
joint
generally
contract.2
prise
arises
joint enterprise.4
forth
The restatement of law sets
the ele- venture or
2d,
(2)
Law, Torts,
Sec-
and defendant were
Restatement
joint enterprise.
plain
engaged in a
*4
tion 491.
Blackham,
164,
appeal
417
are the same.
4. Hall
Utah 2d
tiff’s contentions on
v.
18
Brody
664;
Harris,
Mich.
we
not
P.2d
v.
308
That
do not consider matters
573;
234,
273,
by
A.L.R.
raised
see Hamilton
Salt
N.W.2d
155
v.
County
1187,
Sewerage Imp.
1,
Briggs,
Lake
Dist. No.
v.
225 Iowa
Churchill
216,
15 Utah 2d
any common law rules admissions on other of affidavits, liability C.J.S., any, if that there is no gоvern. care and See 60 show supra, p. genuine issue material fact 997. as to that the moving party is entitled to a opinion showing The main cites no case ** * a judgment as matter law. of guest when the that a host cannot sue a [Emphasis added.] injured by ordinary negligent host is summary driving guest, think the trial a of and one would Here court entered case, dismissal, judgment have because the de- that if there was such a of My no a cited. has revealed fendant was entitled to as mаtter research been of law, nature, lawyer thought he had a it seem but because the such nor does case of give part is to to show willful misconduct on statute furnishing guest a driver. counsel at protection to one is not Plaintiff’s who guest. pretrial a contended that the defendant free ride to negligent respects: (a) excessive three guest driving host’s car his While lookout, speed, improper (c) fail- (b) exactly guests in relation to other stands control, keep proper car ure to under host,1 far different this is a as does thereof amounted to that the combination the host sus- case where matter confer- willful misconduct. guest’s neg- injury tains as result time can and the court ence is when driving. ligent simplify should as- should the issues. He permits guest his ts drive a host When issues, that no formulating so sist counsel agent car, guest he makes justice It miscarriage will occur. car, driving and the purpose of pas- judge sit function to not the guest оf the driver not become host does sively by litigant lose a and allow a guest statute covered our so as to be good simply counsel perfectly case because out. above set upon a making argument an basеd may be requires assumption as law to what the false a motion matter determined on This particular case. summary 56(c), U.R. judgment. Rule 1955, provides fol- C.P., as amended in claiming negligent plaintiff was Here the : lows despite guest; and driving * * * sought inability majоrity of this court judgment shall be judge depo- the trial pleadings, point, I think see the rendered forthwith if misconduct sitions, interrogatories, and noted that willful have answers to should (1937). 384, 109 Mittleman, Herzog A.L.R. Or. P.2d necessary was a element for
prove against guest he only driver if
sought punitive damages. give guest
To driving who is his host’s advantage
car the statute is entirety
rewrite statute in its *6 apart
set Utah from all other states regard.
Union in that
This case should be to the remanded
lower court for a trial issues
negligence on the defendant damages, any, if sustained
as a result thereof. The should
have his costs incurred herein.
H. Grant Johnson, JOHNSON and Helen wife, Appellants, Plaintiffs
SALT LAKE COUNTY COTTONWOOD DISTRICT, SANITARY Defend- Respondent. ant and
No. 11077.
Supreme Court of Utah.
March