From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tarrall v. Tarrall

Supreme Court of Virginia
Nov 16, 1933
161 Va. 663 (Va. 1933)

Opinion

36649

November 16, 1933

Present, All the Justices

AUTOMOBILES — Action by Occupant of Car Against Driver — Negligence of Driver Not Established — Case at Bar. — The instant case was an action by plaintiff against his son, the driver of an automobile, to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. From a judgment in favor of plaintiff defendant assigned error to the action of the trial court in refusing to set aside the verdict and enter judgment for defendant. The uncontradicted evidence established the fact that the car was not being driven at an excessive or dangerous speed; that for some reason, not shown by the record, the mechanism of the car did not function and the accident which resulted in injuries to plaintiff followed.

Held: That the evidence failed to disclose any breach of a legal duty owed by the son to his father. The judgment in favor of plaintiff was, therefore, reversed.

Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of the city of Norfolk, in a proceeding by motion for a judgment for damages. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendant assigns error.

Reversed.

The opinion states the case.

Vandeventer, Eggleston Black, for the plaintiff in error.

E. A. Bilisoly and Semmes Chapman, for the defendant in error.


Plaintiff brought an action against his son to recover for personal injuries received in an automobile accident. From a verdict and judgment in his favor defendant sought and obtained this writ of error.

The only error assigned is to the action of the court in refusing to set aside the verdict and enter up judgment for defendant.

The facts, briefly stated, are that, on November 11, 1930, F. D. Tarrall, Sr., the plaintiff, and three of his sons started on an automobile trip from Norfolk, Virginia, to visit another son in Greensboro, North Carolina. Plaintiff and one son were riding on the rear seat. The other two sons were on the front seat, with Henry A. Tarrall driving. Just before the party reached Warrenton, North Carolina, and while approaching a curve on a down grade, one of the sons called the driver's attention to a curve in the road ahead. The driver testified that as soon as this was done he took his foot off the accelerator. "I got to the down grade of this hill and the car started swinging and I told them, I said 'Fellows I don't know what it is, but the brakes won't hold and I can't do a damn thing with it.' And by the time I got those remarks out of my mouth the car turned over."

The plaintiff, the father of the three boys, testified:

"Q. You charge him with carelessness. What did he do?

"A. Letting the car get out of his control, or something.

"Q. What did he do, was he driving too fast, did he take his hand off the steering wheel?

"A. He was not driving too fast. When the car got away from him and started down the hill it went too fast. That is when it went too fast.

"Q. It was a gradual grade down there?

"A. A right good grade down there, I think.

"Q. You don't think he was driving too fast?

"A. No."

This uncontradicted evidence establishes the fact that the car was not being driven at an excessive or dangerous speed; that for some reason, not shown by the record, the mechanism of the car did not function and the accident with the resulting injuries to plaintiff followed. The evidence fails to disclose any breach of a legal duty the son, Henry Tarrall, owed to his father.

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the court is reversed, the verdict of the jury set aside, and judgment here entered for defendant.

Reversed.


Summaries of

Tarrall v. Tarrall

Supreme Court of Virginia
Nov 16, 1933
161 Va. 663 (Va. 1933)
Case details for

Tarrall v. Tarrall

Case Details

Full title:HENRY A. TARRALL v. F. D. TARRALL, SR

Court:Supreme Court of Virginia

Date published: Nov 16, 1933

Citations

161 Va. 663 (Va. 1933)
171 S.E. 500

Citing Cases

Sutton v. Bland

There is no evidence that Mrs. Burton was negligent after she ran on the shoulder. The circumstances here are…

Chappell v. White

In holding that the plaintiff was entitled to recover under the doctrine of gross negligence, the court said:…