Plaintiff brought this action to recover for the alleged wrongful death of his wife, who was fatally injured while riding in a car owned by defendant, Robert Groszbach, and driven by his wife, Joan Groszbach. The petition alleged negligent operation of the automobile. The trial court held the *646 deceased was a guest as a matter of law and plaintiff could not recover for negligence under the guest statute, section 321.494, Code of Iowa, and directed a verdict for defendants. The sole question presented here is whether the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff generates a jury question as to the status of the deceased passenger.
The principal parties involved in this tragedy are Mrs. Mabel Rud and her three daughters, Ruth Thorson; Genevieve Badger, the deceased, and Joan Groszbach, one of the defendants. Ruth Thorson lived on a farm near Rock Falls, Iowa, with her husband and five young children. On October 6, 1963, she received a severe burn on her right hand and wrist which prevented her from using it for some time. She wrote her sister, Mrs. Groszbach, of her accident and resulting disability.
Mrs. Rud, Mrs. Groszbach and Mrs. Badger all lived near Rochester, Minnesota. On October 9 Mrs. Groszbach and Mrs. Badger were helping their mother redecorate her home. The young ladies discussed their sister’s injury and one or the other suggested they should go to her home and help her. They discussed it with their mother and all three decided to go. They called her and told her they would be down the next day. During the telephone conversation Mrs. Thorson told Mrs. Groszbach the trip was not necessary and Mrs. Groszbach said it would be more fun than work and that they did not get down very often.
About 8 a. m., on October 10, Mrs. Groszbach picked up Mrs. Rud and Mrs. Badger in her husband’s car. They stopped at Hayfield, Minnesota, for gas and at Mrs. Groszbach’s suggestion each put in one dollar to pay for the gas. There was no previous discussion of payment for the trip or cost of gas.
After they arrived at the Thorson home, Mrs. Rud finished canning some carrots, helped Mrs. Thorson prepare the noon meal, helped clean up the house and took care of the children. Mrs. Groszbach, who had brought her own iron and ironing board, and Mrs. Badger spent most of the day ironing for Mrs. Thorson and her family.
The purpose of the trip was to help Mrs. Thorson with her housework and the only benefit either Mrs. Badger or Mrs. *647 Groszbaeh received was the “fun” of the trip and the satisfaction of having helped their sister.
Before leaving at about 5 p.m., they decided to take the four oldest Thorson children to Rochester with them. About four or five miles from the Thorson home the car, driven by Mrs. Groszbaeh, struck a bridge abutment. Mrs. Badger was thrown from the car and received fatal injuries.
Mrs. Groszbaeh testified she did not think she would have made the trip if her sister and mother had not gone along and that they would not have made this trip if Mrs. Thorson had not been injured. It was assumed Mrs. Groszbaeh would do the driving and she did drive all the way.
I. One who rides in an automobile for the definite and tangible benefit of the owner or operator or for the mutual definite and tangible benefit of the owner or operator and himself is not a guest within the meaning of section 321.494. Knutson v. Lurie,
The testimony and permissible inferences establish that the only benefits to the passenger and driver were the pleasure of the trip to visit their sister and the satisfaction of having helped her during a difficult time. No cases have been cited in which similar facts have been held to create a fact question on the applicability of the guest statute. We believe the record goes no further than to establish a common interest in the trip, which is not sufficient. Nielsen v. Kohlstedt,
Recently we have reviewed the long line of guest cases in which wre have been called upon to resolve this problem. Morrow v. Redd,
Stenberg v. Buckley,
In Winter v. Moore, supra, plaintiff, at defendant’s insistence made a trip with her to pick out a joint wedding gift for a mutual friend. We compared that case to Bodaken v. Logan,
In Peronto v. Cootware,
In Thuente v. Hart Motors,
Haas v. Owens,
In Winter v. Moore, Zwanziger v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. Co., and Peronto v. Cootware, all supra, the passenger was not motivated by any benefit she might receive from the trip. In each case, she was in the car at the request or insistence of the owner-operator and not because of her request or a mutual desire to go on the trip. In Thuente v. Hart Motors and Stenberg v. Buckley, both supra, the motivating force was a desire to aid the war effort or fulfill lodge duties respectively. We are not inclined to extend the reasoning of these cases to a trip in which the common interest is to aid friends or family.
“The purpose of our guest statute is to protect automobile drivers and owners from claims made by persons who were riding in the motor vehicle as guests or by invitation and not for hire except as in the statute provided. It is desirable to cut down litigation arising from the commendable unselfish practice of sharing with others transportation in one’s vehicle and protect the Good Samaritan from claims based on negligence by those invited to ride as a courtesy.” Nielsen v. Kohlstedt,
Although the parties here have a common interest and purpose in making the trip, any benefit to the driver or the driver and occupant is indefinite and intangible and not such as to take this case out of the guest statute.
II. Plaintiff also urges us to apply the Minnesota law under the “most significant contacts” rationale and rule. This contention was not made in the trial court and cannot be raised for the first time here. Jones v. Sears,
For the reasons herein stated we affirm. — Affirmed.