Copp

This action was brought by the plaintiff against the defendants to recover for injuries received by the plaintiff when the automobile in which she was riding with the defendants skidded on a wet pavement and capsized. The verdict and judgment were for plaintiff in the sum of $4,150. Defendants appeal.

The principal question on this appeal is as to the degree of care the defendants were required to exercise in driving the car. The defendants claim that plaintiff was their guest and therefore under the so-called “guest law” of Montana (Rev.Codes of Montana 1935, §§ 1748.1, 1748.2, 1748.3) could not recover without showing gross negligence. She alleged in' her complaint that the defendants were guilty of gross negligence on July 6, 1938 and the injuries she received resulted from such gross negligence. As to her legal relationship to the defendants she alleged that for the common purpose of viewing Yellowstone National Park and visiting friends at Roundup, Montana, plaintiff and defendants mutually agreed to travel together in the defendants’ automobile, driven and under the sole control and direction of the defendants from Pierre, South Dakota, to Yellowstone Park, Wyoming, and…

(dissenting).

It seems to me error to hold as a matter of law that the plaintiff was a guest. The evidence on this question was conflicting, *696 and the issue was properly submitted to the jury for determination.

As to the question of gross negligence, the testimony of plaintiff imports gross negligence, nothing less. The evidence of defendants was to the effect that there was no negligence. Logically, therefore, the finding of the jury conclusively established gross negligence.

The court was not required to give the instructions requested by defendant, since the instructions given by the court fairly and adequately covered the various issues.

The judgment should be affirmed.