This case is substantially identical with Ward v. Meeds, supra, page 18, 130 N. W. 2, and the same conclusion is reached. There was no error in submitting to the jury the question whether the plaintiff and Brills, the driver of the vehicle, were engaged in a joint enterprise. Tile evidence made the question one of fact. The question of Brills’ contributory negligence was also one for the jury.

Judgment affirmed.