## Facts

- Conway, a nonpaying passenger, was injured while riding as a guest in O’Brien’s car in Vermont.
- Vermont’s guest-occupant statute barred recovery absent proof that the driver’s conduct was gross or willful negligence.
- The collision occurred near the south end of a covered bridge on a lightly traveled country road.
- The approach to the bridge included a sharp, blind curve and steep grade; bushes and small trees obstructed the view of cars exiting the bridge until roughly 30 feet away.
- The road was narrow and sandy; two cars could pass only at very low speed.
- O’Brien knew the location well and understood the limited visibility and narrowness.
- O’Brien entered the curve at about 15 miles per hour, cut to the left side to round the curve, and did not sound his horn or slow before seeing an oncoming car emerge from the bridge.
- When the oncoming car appeared, O’Brien turned sharply right; the cars collided near their left front wheels, causing substantial impact.

## Issues

1. Whether, viewing the evidence most favorably to Conway, a reasonable jury could find O’Brien’s conduct amounted to “gross negligence” under Vermont’s guest-occupant statute.
2. Whether the court of appeals erred by setting aside the jury’s verdict and ordering dismissal for insufficient evidence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit’s judgment.
- The Court held that the evidence permitted a jury to find gross negligence under Vermont law.
- The Court concluded the case was properly submitted to the jury, and the appellate court erred by removing it from the jury’s consideration.
- The jury verdict for Conway was effectively restored.

## Legal Principles

- Under a guest-occupant statute requiring gross negligence, liability may be found where a driver, with knowledge of a specific hazard, proceeds in a dangerous manner without readily available precautions.
- On review of evidentiary sufficiency, courts must accept the facts and reasonable inferences most favorable to the verdict winner and ask whether a reasonable jury could find the statutory standard satisfied.
- In diversity cases applying state tort standards, the sufficiency inquiry turns on what the state-law standard allows a jury to find, not an appellate court’s reweighing of the risk and conduct.

## Conclusion

Because the jury could reasonably view O’Brien’s knowing choice to cut left into a blind, narrow bridge approach without slowing or warning as gross negligence under Vermont law, the appellate court improperly displaced the jury’s role and the verdict for Conway stood.


Conway v. O’Brien, 312 U.S. 492 (1941)