Negligence — Evidence — Burden of proof — Ownership and agency — Presence of dealer's license plates on truck — Contributory negligence of guest in car — Charge.
1. Where, in a motor vehicle collision case, the defendant files an affidavit of defense denying ownership of the motor vehicle alleged to have caused injury to plaintiff, and denying that its driver was its agent, the burden is upon the plaintiff to show not only that the motor vehicle belonged to the defendant, but also that it was engaged in and about its business at the time the injury occurred. [411-12]
2. In an action for injuries, in which the evidence disclosed that the truck which caused injury to plaintiff contained dealer's license plates of another state, issued to defendant, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to allow plaintiff's counsel to argue, over the objection of defendant, that inasmuch as the truck contained the dealer's license plates, the jury should take that into consideration in determining whether the truck belonged to defendant, where such assumption was not sustained by the law or the facts. [415-16]
3. In an action for injuries sustained by plaintiff, a passenger in a car which collided with a motor vehicle alleged to have caused the injuries to plaintiff, it was not reversible error for the trial judge to charge, in view of the evidence, that a guest in a car is not responsible for the negligence of the driver, unless it appears that in some way the guest was directing the driver, that if a known danger appears and the guest sees it and does not warn the driver of the car of what he sees, the former is negligent, that if plaintiff's testimony as to the capacity of the lights of the car in which he was riding was true, then the driver was operating with improper lights, and that it was strange, if the lights of the car were sufficient, that plaintiff did not see defendant's car, and that if plaintiff contributed in any respect, by his negligence, to the accident, he could not recover. [413-16]
Argued May 27, 1935.
PER CURIAM, June 29, 1935:
The judgment of the court below is affirmed upon the opinion of Judge WICKERSHAM.