OCR Text |
Show Wednesday, August 20, 1958 THE DAILY RECORD Facet Extracts from Recent Decisions of the Supreme Court of the State of Utah came to me. If I ever thought ' was an altercation and certain minutes or a little more, the de- that the car backed up and stopremarks made by defendant who fendant testified that they called ped before going forward. Mr. that, 1 would have found other was chastised by the sister and and hammered on the door for 30 Marshall didnt deny that the ways to get away. I thought mother. Thereupon the defendant minutes. Defendants room was ladles could have let gb of the Mrs. Tayler and Mrs. Marshall all you had enough sense "opened the door and walked dark, and he did not answer their door handles when the car stopRuth Ethel Drury Marshall. to oommon sense deneed or is forward. to before them he is that talk ped going request that Plaintiff and Respondent, out. The record clear not hold thlat could testiknow that cannot be questioned It let them in. Mr. Marshall you fendant had a reputation for Fern Drury Tayler, . . of that car could defendant let that have knew fied back, go plaintiffs they unpleasantness. Plaintiff in Intervention and Counsel for the respective partdid not want to come to the door the door (handles when the car Respondent, Sometimes after defendant and did not want to talk with stopped after defendant backed ies have raised and argued the walked out on his wifes family them. When asked why they did- up. The failure of the wife and question as to whether or not a he moved to Grand County to nt wait til morning before try- the sister to leave the car cannot wife has (a cause of action against T. establish residence and obtain a ing to talk with defendant, Mr. be reconciled with the observ- her husband for a George Tayler, Defendant and Appellant. divorce. Marshall testified that they were ance by plaintiffs of due care for injury inflicted by her husband wife testified that she saw afraid "he would get up and take their own protection. The during coverture. No. 8792 the defendant after he filed the off before them. at all was determined The wife Having concluded that plaintiffs j suit for divorce and that be said: The wife testified that after hazards to prevent defendant were contributorily negligent "Fern, I have gone down to she and Mr. Marshall left de- from getting a divorce and was and that they assumed the risk of WORTHEN, Justice: Thompson to get a divorce. I will fendants cabin door, Mr. Marshall willing to go to any length to in- injury, we deem it unnecessary to send you the papers. went to his station wagon and the sist on forcing defendant to listen discuss the question of a wifes Ruth Ethel Drury Marshall testified as three ladie3 (took off their dresses to her; in fact, her conduct was right to sue under the facts here further Mrs. Tayler (brought an action against defend- follows: and laid down; she didnt think completely unwarranted and be- present, nor to comment on the ant to recover for personal injurtime the last That is you "Q. she slept. She said she heard a yond all bounds of reason. She uncertainty of that question as ies. Fern Drury Tayler, wife of saw him? door slam and stated, "I knew estified that the reason they laid demonstrated by the several opindefendant, intedvened seeking dinot want a did I "A. No, by husband was doing the usual down without fully undressing ions in the case of Taylor v. Patsustained by her from (the same was so she could get out and ten. 1 vorce. thing running out. tortious act of defendant. Mrs. Tayler testified that she prevent her husband from going Q. Did you see him the next Judgment is reversed and the '. .From adverse verdicts in the to her. from case f tried he and get motel is remanded with directions to of the aw!ay the door ran court belOw defendant appeals. night? out as ran testified She that die went back I enter his several to "A. in nights. saw her husband getting judgment for defendant. We win refer herein to five Ithe she of motel Costs to feet out She in ran defendant. car. her calling bare "Monty since been How (had it Q. long principal persons: (1) the defend"excited and emotionally upWE CONCUR: ants wife, Fern Drury Tayler; you saw h'm down in Thompson? and to the left side of his car; was how When set. asked she knew if called ran as she for she did "Monty. A. Just a couple of days. I Roger I. McDonough, (2) the. wifes sister, Ruth Drury she times called she door Chief Justice many Monty, She put her hand on the' left Marshall; (3) the husband of the rot want the divorce. I called "No. I know defenAllan J. and with answered, handle pleaded Crockett, Justice wifes sister, Leland Monty MarNotwithstanding Mrs. Tayler out went as door. the I door of to car to Lester A. The (her. talk dant Monty Wade, Justice shall; (4) the wifes mother, had spent mfuoh time in attemptI was to was talk I wanted window and the locked was Justice: HENROID, desperate; (Concurring) (Ethel G. Drury; and (5) the de- ing to talk her husband out of so him to sister bad. same I At time the the concur added) (Emphasis with the main up. outright fendant, George T. Tayler. These going on with the divorce action, car The and of wife side the to the ran case the sister, in (the lying the of opinion right plaintperoans will be referred to some- with no success; she, the sister, and took hold of the door handle n wait for defendant to make a iff Marshall, but as to the plainttimes herein as the wife,, sister, (he another and (the brother-ibrother-in-lalaw left Salt Lake City in the late on that side. Both plaintiffs testi- move, certainly demonstrated iff Tayler, I concur in the result, mother and The following facts evening of September 11 in quest fied (that ithey spoke to defendant their desperation and ithledr lack not on the grounds stated in the are not in dispute. of defendant. They arrived at but that he did not answer them. of judgment as they flew out the main opinion, but on the grounds Defendant and Fern Drury Thompson, Utah about midnight. Defendant testified that he ask- door without shoes or stockings, that there is no authority for the women to get off the car. with no dresses, but only under her husband in tort in this state. Taylor were married in Gallup, The husbands car was parked at ed both Ichabod In Taylor v. Patten, cited in the Mrs. Tayler testified that all of wear and petticoats. New Mexico, March 2, 1951. De- a motel there. The wife and her ' fendant and his wife were first party registered and entered the a sudden the car gave a sudden Crane, as he fled through the main opinion, two Justices con.cousins., They never established a unit next to defendant.' The wife jerk and started moving at the night, pursued by the headless cluded there was not such a lorseman, presented as moderate cause of action, and one Justice home, but they lived together as testified that defendant did not same time. a Marshall Plaintiffs and Mr. spectacle as plaintiffs running concluded that there was such a man and wife for five years. The know they were coming. .wife lived at the home of her Mr. Marshall testified that testified that defendant started lalf clad across the motel court .cause of action, provided the as- folks while defendant occupied a shortly after they - arrived at it he car and backed up about two They hurled themselves, running sault and battery was commithotel room where the wife visited Thompson he and Mrs. Tayler car lengths, zigzagging as he mov- over the gravel, toward defend- ted after the interlocutory decree for had terminated certain domestic defendant. She declined to live went to the door of defendants ed in reverse. The plaintiffs testi- ants car, with no concernforcon bent not their could that go let fied safety, privileges. I ithink the case Peters only they 'with him in an apartment. The room and asked admittance; that to v. Peters, 42 Iowa 182, should be their to submit defendant then Defendant car. shifted the of ing wife testified (that they carried the wife pleaded with 'him' to desire conservation. went for and forward controlling here as to the plainton a norami husband and wife re- talk with her. He testified that gear and We conclusto iff Tayler, since (that case interare forced the and service station the (through lationship and that she visited he requested defendant to open ion were car an Iowa statute identical that As the onto the the neglipreted plaintiffs highway. .with him almost nightly during the screen door, which was locked in took and sta own statute. In accor-t- o our (that service the gent, placing they, the five year period. . The wife and let them In so they could talk passed through a our themselves of in own in and from which we position peril, testified that she had never had with him. The testimony is in tionu one. of the ladies came Plaindance assumed of the risk contact a with drink soft established with injury. vending principles an altercation with defendant and conflict as to how long the wife own witness testified that of statutory, we would take it a tiffs the other machine with and brother-in-laat were he that her evaded and always anything ' defendants door seeking to get pump .The plaintiff described the thp car stopped after having gone as it was construed by the highest unpleasant. At a family gathering in August, him to talk with them. Mrs. Tay- defendants movement as sudden backwards. It is patent that they court of the. state from whence It . 1956, at the Marshall home, there ler estimated the time as five and zigzagging. Both testified from any danger had they let go came, except in rare and unusual have removed themselves that there was no opportunity for of handles before the car to the them V let go of the car door started to move forward. They I assume that the language of handle. testified thait they were unable the main opinion that "having Mrs. Tayler testified: to let go as the car backed. They concluded that plaintiffs were "I had hold of the handle, were then charged with the duty contributorily negligent and that and it swept me off my feet. of getting away from the car be- they assumed the risk of injury, Before I could get my bearings started to move again. we deem it unnecessary to discuss he went back and forth he fore itcannot blame anyone but the question of a wifes right to They weaved, I could not let go, I themselves for the they sue under the facts here present, would have been run over . . . sustained as the injuries car moved nor to comment on the uncertainso it all fast, Yes, happened e ready-madthe service station. Their ty of that question as demonstratlike I said, he straxited with a through reckless zeal in attempting to ed by the several opinions in Die jerk, and weaved to the side, force defendant against his will case of Taylor v. Patten, in no I lost my balance, and then he to talk with them is the cause of way is intended to reaffirm or t weaved to the other side, he their injuries. actually extend the decision, in backed up, at no time did he Plaintiffs actions ' indicated that case, but only to ignore it. I stop to my recollection, he that they had no idea of looking make this assumption since, never stopped. He came for- out for their own safety they technically speaking, if this case ward weaving back and forth. relied entirely on defendant to, is decided on the I could not let go, I would have see that no harm came to them re- Mrs. Tayler was ground that contributorily gone under one of the wheels gardless. there is a possible sugnegligent, if I had of. All of a sudden, The jurys verdict negatives gestion that if she had not been I hit an object. (Emphasis ad any question of wilfulness or contributorily negligent she otherded) wantonness on ithe part of the wise would have had a cause of However, Mr. Marshall, plaint- defendant, and we think there action against her husband, and iffs' witness, testified that the can be no argument with the that if she had such a cause of speed of Taylers car "as he back- jurys finding. Defendants testi- action against him, it would lie, ed the two car lengths did no mony, wich is a statement of his even though the circumstances DAILY I know he mental attitude, is consistent with giving rise thereto did not arise exceed 15 miles not possible have gone over 15 the jurys special verdict that the during the interlocutory period miles. . . Marshall testified tha actions of defendant were not but, arose as here, even before any the maximum speed of the for- activated by malice. He said: divorce was granted. If the main "I never had a thought in opinion intended by such langward movement to where Tayler service of the entered the world Mrs. Taylor and uage to arrive at any such conthe canopy . 15 20 to miles was about Mrs. station Marshall was going to clusion, I would dissent. Marshall admittec hour. on Mr. 1. 2 Utah 2d 404, 275 P. 2d 696. the car, never a dream hang per jC IN THE SUPREME COURT OF! THE STATE OF UTAH non-lntentio- . ! -- .... : ; ; ( n de-defend- ant. w, . , -- ; ;. w ld offers a for all types market of businesses. quick analysis of these columns will reveal many valuable prospects for your services. A subscription to the RECORD entitles you to use of this material; A ... nal |