About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

5 Wash. L. Rev. 91 (1930)
Gross Negligence

handle is hein.journals/washlr5 and id is 97 raw text is: WASHINGTON

Vo,uME V                    JUNE, 1930                    Numnan 3
The rule is well established that the operator of an automobile
owes an invited guest a duty to exercise reasonable care M its oper-
ation, and will be liable to the guest for ordinary negligence winch
causes injury to him.'
Nevertheless, a few jurisdictions have adopted the rule that gross
negligence must be shown in order to hold the operator liable to his
invited guest, or stated conversely, that only slight care is required
of the operator of an automobile toward his invited guest. The
leading case in support of this view is Massaletti v. Fitzroy2 which,
after a very elaborate review and discussion of the authorities on
the subject, concludes that degrees of negligence are recognized
in Massachusetts, and that
the measure of liability of one who undertakes to carry
gratis is the same as that of one who undertakes to keep
winch is only for gross negligence in that jurisdiction. Georgia, in
Epps. v. Patshb,3 and Pennsylvania, in Cody v. Venzte4, also follow
the gross negligence doctrine.
The latter doctrine is now firmly established in the Washington
law. The first case of significance seems to be Pinckard v. Peasi,3
in winch a guest was injured when the car skidded through a bridge
railing while the owner was hurrying to take the guest (a doctor)
to the bedside of the owner's mother. The court said that the
IPerkins v. Galloway, 194 Ala. 265, L. R. A. 1916E 1190, 69 So. 875
(1915) Beard v. Klusmeter, 158 Ky. 153, 164 S. W  319, 50 L. R. A. (n.s.)
1100, Ann. Cas. 1915D 342 (1914) Avery v. Thompson, 117 Me. 120, 103
Atl. 4, L. R. A. 1918D 205 (1918) Collections of cases in 20 A. L. R. 1014,
228 Mass. 487, 118 N. E. 168, L. R. A. 1918C 2644, Ann. Cas. 1918B 1088,
18 N. C. C. A. 690 (1917)
2 26 Ga. App. 399. 106 S. E. 297 (1921).
'263 Pa. 541, 107 Atl. 383 (1919). But see Ferrell v. Solskz, 278 Pa. 565,
123 Atl. 493 (1924), where the court cited Cody v. Venzze, supra, as au-
thority for the statement that the driver of an automobile was bound to
exercise ordinary care to prevent harm to his guest.
1115 Wash. 282, 197 Pac. 49 (1921).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.

Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most