
    [No. 26356.
    Department Two.
    November 30, 1936.]
    Arthur King et al., Appellants, v. E. C. Williams et al., Respondents. Mamie Lock, a Minor, by her Guardian Ad Litem, George F. Ward, Appellant, v. E. C. Williams et al., Respondent.
      
    
    
      Warren Hardy and Cameron Sherwood, for appellants.
    
      
      Reported in 62 P. (2d) 710.
    
   Mitchell, J.

-—-Arthur King and his wife sued E. C. Williams and his wife, and Mamie Lock, a minor, by her guardian ad litem, sued E. C. Williams and wife. Both actions arose out of one collision of automobiles. E. O. Williams drove one of tlie automobiles. It belonged to Mm and Ms wife. It was alleged that tbe collision was caused by bis negligent driving. All of the plaintiffs were injured. Tbe two actions were consolidated for tbe purpose of trial and appeal. There was in each case a verdict against E. C. Williams and against him and bis wife as a marital community.

A motion on the part of tbe defendants for a dismissal of tbe action against them as a marital community, notwithstanding tbe verdict, was granted. Judgment against E. O. Williams individually was entered in each action. Tbe plaintiffs have appealed from tbe denial of judgment against tbe defendants as a marital community.

Bespondent E. C. Williams took dinner on tbe evening in question with friends, and, on leaving in bis automobile, accidentally met two employees of bis business firm. They decided to go to a dance, and, on tbe way, bis negligent driving caused tbe collision out of which tbe actions arose. Mrs. Williams was not with her husband at tbe time of tbe collision.

Tbe sole question in tbe case is whether tbe community consisting of Mr. and Mrs. Williams is liable for bis negligence in driving tbe automobile.

There was nothing unusual in bis social engagement at tbe time of tbe accident with respect to community liability. Normal, legitimate recreational activities on tbe part of either spouse are not only not harmful, but they promote and advance tbe general welfare of tbe community, and tbe use of tbe community car for that purpose by one spouse, even if tbe other one is not present, is using it for the good of tbe marital community. Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 Pac. 1020, 50 L. R. A. (N. S.) 59; Wicklund v. Allraum, 122 Wash. 546, 211 Pac. 760; Lloyd v. Mowery, 158 Wash. 341, 290 Pac. 710.

Granting the motion for judgment in favor of respondents as a marital community, notwithstanding the verdict, constituted error. The cause is reversed, with directions to enter judgment against E. C. Williams and his wife as a marital community, in addition to judgment against him individually.

Millard, O. J., Tolmar, Holcomb, and Beals, JJ., concur.  