Under Virginia law, evidence that a motorist fell asleep while driving establishes a prima facie case of negligence in the absence of circumstances tending to excuse or justify his conduct. Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 25 S.E.2d 261 (1943); Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 18 S.E.2d 258 (1942). As said in Newell v. Riggins, 197 Va. 490, 90 S.E.2d 150, 153 (1955):
Plaintiffs have alleged sufficient facts to show negligence here, especially considering that "a general allegation of negligence is ordinarily sufficient." Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 475, 25 S.E.2d 261, 263 (Va. 1943). 3. Res Ipsa Loquitur
We have said that "[t]o fall asleep at the steering wheel is a clear violation of the duty to keep a proper lookout." Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 475, 25 S.E.2d 261 (1943). Thus, the principle set forth in the refused instruction was fully and fairly covered in the granted instruction.
Garst v. Obenchain, 196 Va. 664, 85 S.E.2d 207; Boward v. Leftwich, 197 Va. 227, 89 S.E.2d 32; Kennedy v. McElroy, 195 Va. 1078, 81 S.E.2d 436; Alspaugh v. Diggs, 195 Va. 1, 77 S.E.2d 362; Chappell v. White, 182 Va. 625, 29 S.E.2d 858; Thornhill v. Thornhill, 172 Va. 553, 2 S.E.2d 318. Under the law of Virginia, gross negligence is ordinarily a question of fact for the jury and only becomes a question of law for the court when reasonable men should not differ as to the proper conclusion to be drawn from the evidence. Newell v. Riggins, 197 Va. 490, 90 S.E.2d 150; Garst v. Obenchain, 196 Va. 664, 85 S.E.2d 207; Kennedy v. McElroy, 195 Va. 1078, 81 S.E.2d 436; Alspaugh v. Diggs, 195 Va. 1, 77 S.E.2d 362; Carr v. Patram, 193 Va. 604, 70 S.E.2d 308; Sibley v. Slayton, 193 Va. 470, 69 S.E.2d 466; McDowell by Gravatt v. Dye, 193 Va. 309, 69 S.E.2d 459; Steele v. Crocker, 191 Va. 873, 62 S.E.2d 850; Via v. Badanes, 189 Va. 44, 52 S.E.2d 174; Chappell v. White, 182 Va. 625, 29 S.E.2d 858; Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 25 S.E.2d 261; Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 18 S.E.2d 258; 138 A.L.R. 1385; Thornhill v. Thornhill, 172 Va. 553, 2 S.E.2d 318; Drumwright v. Walker, 167 Va. 307, 189 S.E. 310. Many decisions of this Court, involving the questions of negligence and contributory negligence, are to the same effect. Prettyman v. Hopkins Motor Company, 139 W. Va. 711, 81 S.E.2d 78; Davis v. Sargent, 138 W. Va. 861, 78 S.E.2d 217; Wilson v. Edwards, 138 W. Va. 613, 77 S.E.2d 164; Thrasher v. Amere Gas Utilities Company, 138 W. Va. 166, 75 S.E.2d 376; Daughtery v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 135 W. Va. 688, 64 S.E.2d 231; Isgan v. Jenkins, 134 W. Va. 400, 59 S.E.2d 689; Davis v. Pugh, 133 W. Va. 569, 57 S.E.2d 9; Gilkerson v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, 129 W. Va. 649, 41 S.E.2d 188; Yuncke v. Welker, 128 W. Va. 299, 36 S.E.2d 410; Taylor v. City of Huntington, 126 W. Va. 732, 30 S.E.2d 14; Nichols v. Raleigh-Wyoming Mining Company, 116 W. Va. 163, 179 S.E. 70; Cavendish v. Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Com
The next question is whether the trial court should have held that the defendant was guilty of gross negligence as a matter of law, or should have presented that question to the jury for determination. We have followed the general rule that the fact that the operator of a motor vehicle permits himself to go to sleep while driving is sufficient to make out a prima facie case of want of due and proper care. Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 282, 191 S.E. 589; Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 10, 18 S.E.2d 258; 138 A. L. R. 1385; Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 476, 25 S.E.2d 261. However, a non-paying passenger is not entitled to recover damages against the operator of a car for injuries sustained resulting from the operation of such vehicle, unless the injuries were caused by the gross negligence or willful and wanton disregard of the safety of the person * * * on the part of such owner or operator.
Carroll v. Miller, 175 Va. 388, 9 S.E.2d 322. Lennon v. Smith, 173 Va. 322, 2 S.E.2d 340. Hawkins v. Sydnor, 170 Va. 267, 196 S.E. 619. Kent v. Miller, 167 Va. 422, 189 S.E. 332. Grinstead v. Mayhew, 167 Va. 19, 187 S.E. 515. Doub v. Weaver, 164 Va. 96, 178 S.E. 794. Morris v. Dame's Ex'r, 161 Va. 545, 171 S.E. 662. Young v. Dyer, 161 Va. 434, 170 S.E. 737. Jones v. Massie, 158 Va. 121, 163 S.E. 63. Boggs v. Plybon, 157 Va. 30, 160 S.E. 77.Solterer v. Kiss, 193 Va. 695, 70 S.E.2d 329. Carr v. Patram, 193 Va. 604, 70 S.E.2d 308. McDowell v. Dye, 193 Va. 390, 69 S.E.2d 459. Mitchell v. Wilkerson, 193 Va. 121, 67 S.E.2d 912. Steele v. Crocker, 191 Va. 873, 62 S.E.2d 850. Via v. Badanes, 189 Va. 44, 52 S.E.2d 174. McGehee v. Perkins, 188 Va. 116, 49 S.E.2d 304. Crew v. Nelson, 188 Va. 108, 49 S.E.2d 326. Waller v. Waller, 187 Va, 25, 46 S.E.2d 42. Masters v. Cardi, 186 Va. 261, 42 S.E.2d 203. Mountjoy v. Burton, 185 Va. 936, 40 S.E.2d 803. Chappell v. White, 182 Va. 625, 29 S.E.2d 858. Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 25 S.E.2d 261. Remine v. Whited, 180 Va. 1, 21 S.E.2d 743. Jones v. Pasco, 179 Va. 7, 18 S.E.2d 258. Smith v. Turner, 178 Va. 172, 16 S.E.2d 370. Brown v. Branch, 175 Va. 382, 9 S.E.2d 285. Wright v. Osborne, 175 Va. 442, 9 S.E.2d 452. Worcester v. McClurkin, 174 Va. 221, 5 S.E.2d 509. Yorke v. Cottle, 173 Va. 372, 4 S.E.2d 372. Thornhill v. Thornhill, 172 Va. 553, 2 S.E.2d 318. Hackley v. Robey, 170 Va. 55, 195 S.E. 689. Watson v. Coles, 170 Va. 141, 195 S.E. 506. Yonker v. Williams, 169 Va. 294, 192 S.E. 753. Stubbs v. Parker, 169 Va. 676, 192 S.E. 820. Wright v. Swain, 168 Va. 315, 191 S.E. 611. Lee v. Moore, 168 Va. 278, 191 S.E. 589. Drumwright v. Walker, 167 Va. 307, 189 S.E. 310. Holladay v. Colt, 163 Va. 866, 177 S.E. 862. Gale v. Wilber, 163 Va. 211, 175 S.E. 739. Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 174 S.E. 837. Margiotta v. Aycock, 162 Va. 557, 174 S.E. 831. Collins v. Robinson, 160 Va. 520, 169 S.E. 609. The act of negligence upon which plaintiffs rely in the case under consideration is not
(Italics supplied.) Although, as has been said, there was no objection to the form of the instruction, the italicized language is not a correct statement of the principle of law there sought to be applied. It is true, as counsel for the plaintiff points out, that certain language used in Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 477, 25 S.E.2d 261, 263, may seem to approve the instruction as written. But if we advert to our earlier cases, where the subject is fully discussed, we will see that something more than a mere breach of two or more statutory duties imposed upon a driver is required in order to sustain a finding that he has been guilty of gross negligence.
The policy of the law has relegated the determination of such questions to the jury, under proper instructions from the court." Boggs v. Plybon, 157 Va. 30, 38, 160 S.E. 77. See Twyman v. Adkins, 168 Va. 456, 191 S.E. 615; Chappell v. White, 184 Va. 810, 36 S.E.2d 524; Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 25 S.E.2d 261; Hill v. Bradley, 186 Va. 394, 43 S.E.2d 29; Mountjoy v. Burton, 185 Va. 936, 40 S.E.2d 803; Austin v. Austin, 186 Va. 382, 43 S.E.2d 31; Chappell v. White, 182 Va. 625, 29 S.E.2d 858; Howe v. Jones, 162 Va. 442, 174 S.E. 764; Thomas v. Snow, 162 Va. 654, 174 S.E. 837; Wright v. Osborne, 175 Va. 442, 9 S.E.2d 452; Brown v. Branch, 175 Va. 382, 9 S.E.2d 285; Drumwright v. Walker, 167 Va. 307, 189 S.E. 310; Toler v. Yellow Cab Co., 179 Va. 38, 18 S.E.2d 250. We have defined gross negligence to be that degree of negligence which shows an utter disregard of prudence amounting to a complete neglect of the safety of another.
We do not know what speed the car was making at the time of the accident; but any speed was too fast while she was driving asleep or with her eyes closed." To the same effect, see Lipscomb v. O'Brien, 181 Va. 471, 25 S.E.2d 261; Wright v. Swain, 168 Va. 315, 191 S.E. 611. The facts in Koufman v. Feinberg, 298 Mass. 270, 10 N.E.2d 91, were that plaintiff was sitting beside the driver with a suitcase on the floor under her feet. En route, while the car was going 35 to 40 miles an hour, defendant, over plaintiff's protest, took the suitcase from under her feet, and put it back of him. As he did so the car ran off the highway and into a tree injuring plaintiff.