Boyd v. Mueller

3 Citing cases

  1. Smith v. Franklin

    376 P.2d 541 (Utah 1962)   Cited 9 times

    Florida has held under similar facts that such a rider's status was that of a guest as a matter of law. Harper and James, Law of Torts, Vol. 2, Sec. 16.15, p. 958; Chaplowe v. Powsner, 119 Conn. 188, 175 A. 470, 95 A.L.R. 1177; Boyd v. Mueller, 320 Ill. App. 303, 50 N.E.2d 847; Whitechat v. Guyette, 19 Cal.2d 428, 122 P.2d 47, and Anno. in 10 A.L.R.2d 1351. Yokum v. Rodriguez, 41 So.2d 446 (Fla.).

  2. Weinrob v. Heintz

    104 N.E.2d 534 (Ill. App. Ct. 1951)   Cited 17 times
    In Weinrob v. Heintz, 346 Ill. App. 30, the plaintiff objected to the submission of, and the answers to, special interrogatories given by the court to the jury.

    In Connett v. Winget, 374 Ill. 531, the court said that in determining whether a person is a guest within the meaning of the "guest statutes" consideration is given to the person or persons advantaged by the carriage; that if it confers only a benefit incident to hospitality, companionship or the like, the passenger is a guest, but if the carriage tends to promote mutual interests of both the person carried and the driver, or if the carriage is primarily for the attainment of some objective or purpose of the operator, the passenger is not a guest within the meaning of such enactments. See also Miller v. Miller, supra, Boyd v. Mueller, 320 Ill. App. 303. Plaintiff testified that on March 24, 1947, defendant telephoned him and asked him to meet him at the Stevens Hotel the following morning to drive to Tuscola, Illinois, for the purpose of purchasing a corn canning plant; that plaintiff was to accompany defendant to check the legal details concerning the title to the plant; that defendant "was interested in the deal" because he told witness that he, defendant, was to be the broker in the deal; that witness thought at the time that defendant was taking him to Tuscola and bringing him back the same day; that defendant told witness that he expected to sell the product of the plant on a commission basis; and that witness knew that a contract was drawn up with reference to a brokerage corporation of which defendant was to be the head.

  3. Sloan v. Nevil

    229 S.W.2d 350 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1950)   Cited 10 times
    In Sloan, the Court specifically found, undoubtedly upon proof adduced in the record, that the accident was caused by a latent defect that could not have been discovered by ordinary inspection.

    See also Leonard v. Stone, 313 Ill. App. 149, 39 N.E.2d 388. In the case of Boyd v. Mueller, 320 Ill. App. 303, 305, 50 N.E.2d 847, 849, the Court said: "Plaintiff, insisting that the trip on which she was injured was a trip having a business aspect, says that because of lonesomeness Nichols, for his own pleasure invited his three friends to vist him at the airport and that the trip was primarily for the purpose of the owner of the car. In taking this position plaintiff ignores the fact that the only benefit conferred on Nichols was incident to the companionship of his friends and that the entire trip was devoted to social activities — the visit with Nichols at the Pal-Waukee airport, dinner at Des Plaines, the social ride in the evening, including a visit to another airport, without the slightest evidence of any business or material personal interest being suggested or promoted. If a trip is social its character is not transformed into a trip with business aspect because the owner suggests it or extends the invitation.