*1 ligence, proximate which was the cause of collision, injury damage and of the plaintiff. therefore reverse would
the judgment. CRITCHLEY,
Iva Rose Sandstrom and Oldham,
Leora Plaintiffs and
Appellants,
v. VANCE,
Elizabeth Defendant Respondent.
No. 15076.
Supreme Court of Utah.
Jan. Diamond, Gregory
James R. Black and C. Moore, plain- Lake City, of Black & Salt appellants. tiffs and Snow, Raymond Berry, M. Christensen Martineau, City, & Lake for defendant Salt respondent. ELLETT, Chief Justice: here, plaintiffs, and Mrs. Vance, respondent, were friends. close Nevada, decided to Las They go birthdays to celebrate their since in either born October November. Vance furnish agreed was pay and the plaintiffs oil. ladies were expenses These prior trips close friends and had taken to- arrangements. Each gether under similar ten dol- gave Mrs. Vance lars, and was that other funds understood *2 188 plaintiff The did the costs. were to share the need arose. forthcoming if be reckless, conduct or Utah, assert wanton the home not Ogden, from The distance of the host driver. part on the drunkenness Vance, Vegas approxi- Las is
of Mrs.
for
passenger
he was a
miles,
simply
oil He
claimed
and the cost of
475
mately
692,
222,
page
at
At
398 P.2d
page
the wear
hire'.
the cost of
scarcely equal
that when
“It is axiomatic
this Court said:
tear on the automobile.
not condi-
trip
purpose,
is for a social
they
reached Las
they
When
the
for the benefit of
tioned on contribution
they
which
cost of a motel room
shared the
guests though
are
passengers
the
attended,
occupied. Some shows
trip
the costs of the
they agree to share
her own admis-
paying for
person
with each
trip.”
gas, oil or meals on
purchase
sion.
assert that
The
also
Vance,
home,
the driver
way
theOn
is unconstitutional in that
guest statute
cause,
car, due to some unknown
of the
of the
protection
violates the
clause
equal
the car to leave
road
permitted
constitutionality
The
federal constitution.2
over,
injuring
plaintiffs.
thereby
turn
this Court
statute was before
guest
of the
willful miscon-
gross negligence,
Neither
where we
in the case of Cannon v. Oviatt3
duct,
alleged
or claimed
nor intoxication
pro
equal
there was no denial of
held that
accident;
of the
involved in the cause
to be
law.
tection of the
is involved.
negligence only
case
was raised in the
question
The same
granted the defendant’s
The trial court
R.R. Co.4
of Thomas v. Union Pacific
ap-
and this
summary judgment
motion
deny
not
we held the statute did
Again,
are to
followed. All code references
peal
protection
by preventing
of the law
Annotated,
equal
1953.
Utah Code
guest
suing
permitting
from
the host while
41-9-1 denies a
Section
paying passenger
to sue and recover
riding in a car who
guest-passenger
to any
there stat-
simple negligence.
opinion
The
simple negligence
as a result of
ed: “We are now of the
that a
“guest”
the host. The term
part
re-examination
left to
of the act should be
statute to be “a
is defined
legislature.”
without
accepts
any
who
a ride in
vehicle
(41-9-2).
are some states that have held
giving compensation therefor.”
There
deny
equal
statute does
that
first claim of
The
law;
seems to
protection of the
but there
paying pas
were not
but were
be a
back to the idea that a host
trend
claim.
There is no merit to this
sengers.
more
ought
compelled
not to be
to exercise
action were social
parties
The
to this
than he does for himself.
care for his
outing
in an
for fun and to
engaged
friends
wishes to have a
that
has
birthdays. Our Court
celebrate their
class, he should
statute denies to all in his
cases, only
the claim to rest in several
put
change
paying
his class status and start
That is
which needs to be cited.
one of
his ride.5
There,
people
three
Greenhalgh v. Green.1
prior
hunt similar to
hunts
The
also claim that our
planned
deer
repeals
in. The defend
law6
our
participated
comparative negligence
had
camper
by implication.
compara-
ant there was to furnish the
and all
Springs
(1965).
Amusements Ltd. v.
1. 16 Utah 2d
5. See Colorado
reason of negligence on the JJ., HALL, concur. CROCKETT part the plaintiff himself. MAUGHAN, statute, Prior to this contributory negli- *3 are found in my The reasons dissent gence was complete a defense and that dissenting opinion in Thomas v. Union posed problem no in guest We are case. Company, Pacific Railroad P.2d why unable to see a different problem by created reason fact that the con- tributory negligence partial is now only WILKINS, defense. bars I dissent. of recovery guest, it by would seem that statutory All references are to Utah Code his negligence would be imma- Ann., amended, as unless otherwise terial. stated.
They also contend that the “no- passed by Title the Utah Chapter fault” in as the Legislature statute makes a host known “Utah liable for No-Fault Act.” Automobile Insurance negligence.7 That contention is of no valid on payment a no-fault basis ity. While the prevents security insurance or other of cer- through host, recovery against it no ex makes persons suffering per- tain to all benefits ception for under the contract injury arising sonal out of automobile acci- between the host and his insurance however, of an “preserving, dents which contract those with protects who ride injured pursue customary to tort the permission of insured host. types inju- where the most of claims serious ry occur.” Sec. 31—41-2. by There is wild made assertion exception latter statute makes no This effect were the contrary, it guests. On includes “hosts” they paid gaso inasmuch as for the Therefore, Statute, Utah’s Guest them. line. Mrs. Vance was the was her host. It is, believe, repealed I impliedly Sec. 41-9-1 car in which riding, by legislation. the no-fault and, besides, wear and tear on even, But, implied repeal arguendo, if of would be more than the thirty dollars statute has not occurred enact- paid in total. Chapter ment of Title residuum of of enactment a statute such as our constitutionally impermissible discrimina- legisla- statute seems to be within the tion remains those automobile purview that preventing in at the suits types who receive “the serious most instance of a increase tend to of believe injury.”1 this unreasonable the likelihood an invitation to ride. class, i. e. the class of classification within a statute, therefore, has the effect of encour- I, guests, repugnant to Art. Sec. Con- aging persons driving motor vehicles Also, appears stitution of Utah. to me carry guest passengers; and tends to this legal when a singular irony obtains reduce the number motor vehicles system permits injured guests less to recov- highway fuel, and to conserve both er there is while the though no which are matters of legitimate public con- seriously guest cannot recover when cern and legislation. negligence. there is U.C.A., 1953, 31-41-2, Nev., (1975) seq. et P.2d 579-80 and cases cited therein. Batjer’s concurring 1. See Justice Court, Eighth Laakonen v. Judicial District