Court Opinion

ID: 9658528
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:04:11.058745+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.382088
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). I concur with the summary concluding paragraph of the Court’s opinion. The question of plaintiff’s status while riding with defendant, as guest or otherwise, was one of fact. *538So was the presented question of defendant’s guilt or innocence of actionable gross negligence. Both questions of fact were determined against plaintiff by the appointed trier of fact. Such trier’s determination of either question cannot be pronounced contrary to the preponderance of the evidence, and so our appellate function comes to an end.
These conclusions considered, I cannot subscribe to others appearing in the Court’s opinion, particularly that which evaluates plaintiff’s testimony, on the subject of joint enterprise, as a matter of law. I refer specifically to this passage:
“"Without discussing this phase of the case further, we conclude that the trial judge was right in holding that plaintiff was a guest passenger, and that his testimony did not sustain his claim that there was a joint enterprise.”
I concur in affirmance.
Smith, J., did not sit.
Souris, J., took no part in the decision of this ease.