West v. Bruns

WIUUSON, O. J.

(after stating the facts as above). [1] The contention that 'the trial court erred when he refused to instruct the jury to return a verdict in appellant’s favor is based on the finding that Yetrano also was guilty of negligence which was a proximate cause of the collision. It is insisted it appeared that Vetrano and appellee were engaged (quoting) “upon .a joint enterprise in which each had a like interest,” and therefore that the negligence the jury found the former was guilty of was imputable to the latter. The rule invoked is stated as follows ifi 20 R. C. L. 149:

“If two or…