*1 why nо statute decision of this court that has or reason this cannot be in afforded impose proceeding ever authorized a circuit court to a same ag- petition grieved indemnity compensatory party fine as or as dam- seeking damages after a in ages party finding to the adverse a civil action. by opposite trial court that the party contempt. think the of the amount is in A jury We would be im- unliquidated damages regularly paneled peti- should be to hear the evidеnce on such party a have tion and damages, tried so that dissatisfied could determine whether com- by appeal pensatory should, punitive, an an rather than or initial review under the rules, a by indemnity imposed. a An usual be writ of certiorаri. damages must be
compensatory award of Reversed and remanded. ancillary proceeding and in an determined integral part an permissible is not as All the Justices contempt in the cir- adjudication of court’s of this state. cuit courts requires
Having 65(c) held that Rule applicant” giving security
“the specifi- mandatory unless
and that this by the court in its order
cally excepted prelimi- restraining or a a order
granting injunc- that the nary injunction, we hold So.2d therefore, and, there tion was not Jerry Beasley, John BEASLEY K. K. a contempt. was no through minor who sues his father friend, Beasley and next John K. imping- understood as are not to be We in ing, opinion, holding 588, City Fairfield, 273 Alа. Fields v. Gregory BOZEMAN, minor, 177,and that of 143 So.2d United States v. Lynn Bozeman. America, Mine 330 U. United Workers of SC 1134. 91 L.Ed. that vio- S. S.Ct. punisha- an lations of order of court Alabama. contempt though even
ble criminal July 10, 1975. appeal. both of order is set aside on In cases, any it was not that those contended omitted,
procedural requirements were here, proceeding
while shows on its compliance
face that there was no with 65(c).
Rule holding are we to be understood as
Nor is a of a valid where there violation
restraining proxi- such violation order and
mately aggrieved damages results in to the injured party is a rem-
party, such
edy. Texas, see
Unlike the court we do not necessity requiring aggrieved his
party pursue an instance to suit; but,
remedy in another like the Cali- court, party on
fornia we believe either de- jury
mand trial on would be entitled to damages. perceive no
the issue of
289 Fuller, Montgomery, Jordan, Heard & appellants.
for Keene, Montgomery, ap- Thomas H.
pellees.
290 Oviatt, P.2d 99 Cannon MADDOX, (Or.1974); 525 Justice. 1974); Botsch v. (Utah, P.2d the con- decision is sole Reisdorff, 226 N.W.2d 193 Neb. Statute,” “Guest
stitutionality of Alabama’s Burke, 229 N.W.2d (1975); Behrns v. (Re- Alabama 1940 Title Code § (S.D.1975). reads follows: comp. 1958), which *3 opinion, that under the the We only for willful or wanton “Liable powers section of our distribution of Statе owner, operator or misconduct. —The Constitution, province is the it within operation the of a person responsible for Legislature the ascertain and determine to be liable for loss shall not motor vehicle peoplе might when of the re- the welfare arising injuries from to or damage or quire guest that the statute should be re- transported being guest while death of pealed. power Legislature’s should The upon payment therefor in or not be it exercised interfered with unless vehicle, the resulting from said motor plainly in a conflicts with manner which thereof, injuries or unless such operation Matthews, higher su- some law. Pickett v. wan- by the willful or are caused death pra. operator, owner misconduct of such tоn responsible operation the person judgment The of the circuit court motor vehicle.” of said due to be affirmed. case, we it Since affirm the is unneces- guest argues that our Appellant sary point us to discuss the raised 6, 22 1, 13 and violates Sections statute appellee the that the constitutional 14 and Amendment
the State Constitution adequately was not raised trial These identi Federal Constitution. the court. constitu made when the cal were claims guest statute was Alabamа’s tionality of Affirmed. case of Pickett v. upheld in this Court’s 542, 261 Matthews, 192 So. 238 Ala. BLOODWORTH, MERRILL, ALMON (1939). SHORES, JJ., concur. have that some courts are aware HEFLIN, in J., concurs the to be unconstitu C. result. guest held their statutes Merlo, 855, Cal.3d Brown v. 8 tional. Cf. 388, (1973); P.2d 212 Cal.Rptr. JONES, J., specially,
106 506 with which concurs 19, EMBRY, Idaho 523 P.2d Thоmpson Hagan, JJ., v. 96 FAULKNER and Bauder, ; 213 Kan. v. (1974) Henry 1365 Has (1974); Johnson v. P.2d 362 518 JONES, (concurring specially).
sett, (N.D.1974). 771 217 N.W.2d Because my concurrence with opin- this has the United States represents mind, change ion amI con- pass guest upheld a state to right strained to reasoning proc- comment on the Silver, 50 280 U.S. law. Silver v. See my ess which led to this reversal in think- (1929). 221 74 S.Ct. L.Ed. ing. office, It is discipline this fortunately so, impulses Alabama other states besides that initial do
Several not always prevail guest against recently upheld thorough their individual have research Harrison, and more Tisko 500 deliberate consideration. Espe- See v. S.W. statutes. cially do Richardson we find this to be true (Tex.Civ.App.1973); 2d when we commit to Hansen, (Colo.1974); writing Jus the rationale for v. our 527 P.2d conclusions, practiced Gatсhell, frequently 97 (Del.Supr. tice 325 A.2d which is v. Thompson, in difficult Keasling although 217 N.W.2d cases another 1974); Limbocker, prepare 1974); assigned Duerst v. has to (Iowa been Justices opinion. It is very not too uncommon to find still much alive in common law is state; that what will “think will not “write out” and I believe it is the func- down”; expression judicial Court, thus the litigat- cir- tion of in the context of cles, just way.” issues, “It won’t write ed to formulate and announce opinions through written rules of law in My compulsion initial was to strike down legislative prerog- аreas fall which outside guest statute as bad law. IWhile have prerogato- atories or in areas where those changed my quality mind about legislatively ries have not been exercised. Act, legal I have concluded there is no includes, оpinion, my This reexamina- basis which this Court could hold the law; and, existing tion of with due case disagree statute pub- invalid. To with the decisis, regard principle of stare to to expressed policy lic legislature prior overrule when we are сon- decisions guest easy. Indeed, statute is I have beyond peradventure of doubt that vinced always believed that the “hitch-hiker” theo- *4 wrong when decided such decisions were ry, allegedly which was the basis of the change or that time has such as to affected public expressed policy therein, was a but require change a in the law. guise and a ruse for the real reason for its passage protection corporate insur- principle, of decisis is a noble but it Stare —the ors and other vested interests. Had I adjudicata. is not case-hardened res Un- then, legislature been a member of the I Killy-loo bird, like the who insists on against would have passage backward, voted its flying the law must be interest- —or now, repeal. I would vote its The case ed in going where it is as well as it where development, particularly law those deci- has judicial been. This reexamination of sions which seek to define the status of statutory case law likewise should include guests passengers, versus other of itself interpretation legis- insure that the so to folly the shows and lack of wisdom of such given intent is be- lative full effect. I a law. lieve there is a distinction between broad usurpation pre- the Court’s legislative of hand, the other strоngly On I believe rogatives the in- is forbidden —and —which separation powers the .wisdom of the terpretation legislative intent —which is doctrine which the of our is foundation legitimate judicial function. system government, and the Court is powerless The comрlementary statutory to legis- strike down as invalid a enactment process by legislature hand, constitutionally lative act unless the one such act is the prohibited and the judicial process creative or otherwise violative of cоnsti- other, proscriptions. wisely put tutional was legislative perspective by The into process, through representatives, Cardozo in elective “The Growth (pp. Law” faults, tendency 131-134): with all of its its and to be unduly by pressure groups, influenced who, “Thеre are dismayed those by the yet the best method derived man for the difficulties judicial process of the when expressive public enactment of laws of the it becomes a agency, keep creative would policy people. (I paren- of its would add sphere it to reproduc- of imitative thetically My process : faith this further tion, and leave creation to the statutes. legislature leads me to believe that a sensi- am pre- I not sure but that I should be people to the will represents tive it pared join proved to them if statutes had repeal will prerogative now exercise its to adequate past in the bearing to the inherently law.) bad burden, gave promise being this,
Having however, adequаte any said I within sight. would has- future now in ten to add that surprised many this does not mean that I have been to see how a lawmaking partisans separation not tribunal. The the notion of a ama- judges Even if we could believe that the perpetual rigid powers and —the profes- teurs would be wiser than the the crea- interpreters, legislature sionals, remedy prescribed at their would be day muster in our to
tor —is able even help patient New too late to whose disease ago the months the bar. Some they had observed. Administered to an- published letters of York Law Journal other, reckoning change readers, praise, some in criti- some its symptoms, might it more harm than cism, recently announced. do a decision upon good. depreciate mean un- them, I do not to critics, went or some of The duly the of the statute as an in- stare decisis value the rule of theory that constitution, Legislation and strument of can reform. in the imbedded was it, cancer, right hoary eradicate a some they departed from judges, when ig- wrong, definitely estab- precedent correct some usurpers, though were evil, lished which defies the feebler rem- mouldy grave as the from nored was as fictions, edies, to brought it the distinctions and had forth which counsel judicial process. Legisla- de- familiar to the age. Stare light of a new face the tion, constitution, too, up I can sum at times and sim- but cisis is courts, there, put plify it and reached ready to conclusions be half should then, validity. Evеn give me- them new requirement of thereto the to add provisional temporary. only if its relief is reproduction, literal chanical cycle is unending.” is a suffi- legislation true that it were centuries, growth. The agency of cient *5 Here, appellants ingeniously argue that anything, have proved they have if guest equal protec- statute violates the something more. proved the need of injunction tion state and federal gropings and uncertain tentative These by imposing constitutions оn the host inevitable, deplored, they may be but of a social guest an automobile the same less, to rush if we are not none the duty imposed of due care as on the host of Unique situations blindly into darkness. guests society. Appel- other social in our ready their answers never have can approaches lant forthright- contention complete letter-writing made ly, recognizing that line of Alabama cases art con- the manuals of the guides or premises dealing with treat dеfects which taken is not to be versation. guest imposes as a mere licensee and ad- is to be wooed slow storm. She duty willfully only host the not to decision, statute for vances. Substitute wantonly injure. authority, you but shift the center of inspired quota wisdom. If add no Appellant parallel reasons that bur- place of the cre- legislation is to take den proving only wantonness holds courts, legislative action of the ative where resulting injury the conduct must back of us at ev- passive committеe stand negligence. rather than active cases tend session, supercourt appellant’s to bear out latter a sort of ery itself. premise; and, they not, even if did I that a guarantee given us choice No reluctance, would hаve no under the thesis own, than made will be wiser our thus above, discussed to reexamine and recon- give rigidity it a yet its form will sider, context, adversary our compromise impossi- make retreat or will judge-made premises liability. laws process exсhanging shall ble. be judges trial and error at hands rate, anyAt assuming validity ap- their lives make it business of who pellant’s contention between the status of at the process trial and error for a guests automobile nonautomobile guests, legislative committee who I am hands of a unable to conclude that they spare moments as classification is give will it such unreasonable or otherwise constitutionally proscribed. Here, amid multifarious demands. again, can find I reason emphasize good that I see no would distinction, personal this is a hut legal
opinion which does not constitute by this Court of
basis for a declaration invalidity.
constitutional EMBRY, JJ.,
FAULKNER So.2d
William S. McDUFFIE HOOPER.
William F.
SC 1259. of Alabama. Conley, Montgomery, ap- Charles S. pellant.
July 3, 1975.