*1 clearly contributing cause violation, being accordingly, such justified the court followed, action of the of the accident judgment for defendant entering n.o.v.” below 71, 73, Blandon, 294 Mich. N.W. Rodgers v. state, negligence as of law says: “In this it a matter supra, pass from the- approaching another rear for a vehicle * * * right-hand perils side. Certain of of such passing are obvious.” are in the “perils passing” such illustrated
Indeed, the holdings definite that violation bar. own are case at Our exception noted, negligence safety with the statute, one can debate se; here, under the there fair per and, facts plaintiff’s injuries. The contributed correctly judgment entering for defendant ruled trial court plaintiff. notwithstanding the verdict for —Affirmed. All Justices concur. George indi- al., appellees, E.
Gus et Sr., Ritter George E. vidually of estate of and as administrator Jr., appellants. 49656. No. 280)
(Reported in 95 N.W.2d *2 1959. 10, March May Rehearing 8, 1959. Denied all of Kroeger, B. & McCracken and Walter McDonald Davenport, appellants. for Wissler, appellees. for Davenport,
Waldo M. Dexter, McBride v. companion J. This case of Oliver, damages action for 92 which was an Iowa N.W.2d by McBride, occupant of a Mer- injuries an for suffered John Sr., cury -by and his automobile, George E. owned evening Jr., on the by son, George Dexter, B. consent driven his pavement off at a curve of November when ran injured fatally driver, Dexter, and was wrecked. The Jr. was riding in the ear and four other who were suffered injuries. McBride. Another One of them was John serious subsequently at- Ritter, age years, James then seventeen who in this action majority by marriage. plaintiff He is tained his Ritter, along father, Gus damages injuries, for for his with his recovery hospital expenses, etc., for who seeks doctor during minority. for loss of the services of James George Dexter, Sr., person, B. as are Defendants automobile, and also as administrator of estate owner of George Jr., E. the driver. Trial to- a resulted judgment against defendants', plaintiff for Gus Ritter $8000, $3526.70 and for James Ritter and this appeal -by defendants. Dexter, supra,
I. As in McBride v. important an issue is whether the motor vehicle statute, 321.494, (1958) section 19'54 here Iowa, Code applicable. provides: operator
“Guest statute. or of a motor vehicle The owner any shall not person be liable for or damages to riding in said motor invitation vehicle as damage for hire unless is caused as result driver intoxicating said motor being vehicle under the influence of liquor because of the him of such motor reckless vehicle.” theories,
This pleaded is based two different action *3 separate theory that petition. pleaded counts One car, James to accompanied Dexter, Ritter in the Dexter Jr. near-bjr him assisting town of Walcott for the in searching- during car for fender from the skirts there stolen previous week; gave that this him o£ a the status in operator, the Dexter as automobile for its distinguished guest, injuries, of a that his were by Dexter, caused negligent operation Jr.’s of the Dexter auto- mobile. pleaded theory The other is that Ritter James was guest injuries in the car and his were caused the reckless operation of the car Dexter, Jr.
II. Appellants upon based appeal assign their but one error, ment of to wit: overruling errors of the trial court in their motions judgment for directed and for verdict notwith standing Their arguments verdict. written briefs and oral rested single contention that the evidence was not sufficient justify to submission to the of either the issue of reckless ear, or the issue that James riding Ritter was in in capacity the car other guest. than as a In determining question sufficiency, of such requires established rule that the evidence in light be considered most favorable plaintiffs. injured an statute, requires which operator prove seeking recovery from the owner
occupant reckless riding “in operation, said motor vehicle as a applicable only when such * [*] If occupant he sustains capacity, he proving was some other the burden liability govern. ordinary rules of will school the same Dexter, Jr. and Ritter attended James Saturday, A days November in Bettendorf. few before Walcott, -go Ritter to with him to Jr. had James Dexter, asked distant, Saturday night, and about miles town ten small from the fender skirts that had been stolen him look for help not know previous Ritter did then car the week. James Saturday evening in trip. On could make the whether he skating rink Dexter, saw James Ritter at a question Jr. go if again him he would like to asked Bettendorf him look for Jr. was the fender skirts. Walcott Mercury good which driving father’s automobile Ritter, Upon learning McBride was with James condition. go of them could out. Several other Jr. said both took Dexter ear. with them in the The drive Walcott went twenty They looked at the skirts all fifteen minutes. by walking up one block and at Walcott and down on the cars blocks, by driving other but did find around several then They for a to a hall fender skirts. went dance the stolen to return very time, had lunch at café and then started short Davenport. Highway 6, upon distance No. Dexter, Jr. drove short seventy-five per they traveled at the rate of about miles which reaching the car Corner, before Hahn’s where he slowed hour *4 leaving sharp After that curve he increased the for a curve. place of accident speed of car. About mile from the the the a hour. eighty per miles passed it and a semitrailer overtook at indicating slight sign a curve curve approached Then it occupants of the car testified realized left. One the of he the The they going to around the curve. car were not make it right of negotiate went off the side the failed the curve and twenty.-five thirty grade feet the pavement and about alongside the sign. passed through pavement ditch the curve driveway embankments a and and traveled across culverts 884: the five Officers found hundred feet. of about two
distance of lying scene the men, seriously injured, around the young The car was wrecked. accident. concerning operation the of the automobile
III.
record
immediately
time
the
substan-
before the
of
accident
at and
Dexter,
in
in
case at bar and McBride v.
tially the same
the
7,
“But the weakness his case point at this is that there is evidence that the went on aiding Dexter in searching for his fender skirts. No one so testifies.”
835 McBride, and testimony of to the opinion then refers asked Mc- whom testified witnesses, none of two other It continues: for fender skirts. him look help Bride to help look him to Dexter asked testimony is that “Ritter’s agreed, requested, or was say not McBride he does skirts; for the help. question, bearing on evidence total of the “This is the upon jury’s for determination anything and it fails to show of Dexter. for benefit that McBride was on the claim considering correctness of mindful the rule We are verdict for the defendant ruling peremptory directs a of a which aspect plain- most favorable must taken the evidence be nothing from reasonably bear. But there tiff it will which reasonably it could be deduced that definite and which bargained expected for or benefit to Dexter was tangible in the ear.” presence McBride’s already at has been made to evidence in the ease
Reference bar, Ritter rode to Walcott in the Dexter automobile that James aiding request Dexter, purpose Jr. for of the latter at the for the Dexter automobile. searching skirts of 195, 147, 217 Lurie, supra, 192, Iowa 251 N.W. Knutson v. “for 149, to the rule one who rides an automobile points or tangible operator” owner the definite and recovery injuries suffered such rider not a may operator. based repeatedly been followed cited
That decision has or Stenberg approval by courts of and other states. this See citations; Buckley, 245 Iowa 630 to 61 N.W.2d Motors, v. Hart 234 Thuente S., Vehicles, 399.5(b), page C. J. Motor section
citations. 60 carriage primarily states, if his “is for the attainment of operator or objective of the owner he is some * * * guest.” Co., 244, 250, Pacific Cal.2d Martinez v. Southern 868, 871, P.2d states: “ person with another ‘Whether a on the is to be determined basis the answer question: confer a benefit on the Did the rider factual * ** trier fact determined ride ? Once the has driver *6 benefit, province reviewing the [question] fact of of the
the simply the record to determine court is to examine whether this * * substantially finding supported.’ is *. factual * “* * tangible benefit, Where the driver receives a mon- otherwise, etary motivating which is a or influence for furnish- transportation, may ing compensation the be said to' been have given, result that passenger the the rider is a driver with the ordinary negligence. is liable the benefit But [Citations] something must to the driver more than simply pleasure the * * company of the rider’s Fuqua, McUne v. 42 Wash.2d 70, 71, 632, 635, 253 P.2d quotes approval: “ * * ‘* It if presence sufficient the occupant compensates directly operator the or owner in a substantial or sense, material business as distinguished from mere social nominal incidental contribution expenses.’ [Citation].”
With required reference to the benefit the decision states: requirement “This does mean taking trip that the the must by expectation be motivated of receiving the benefit. only It need be shown furnishing that transportation to the was motivated such expectation. does Nor it mean that expectation of receiving the benefit must be the motivating sole factor in furnishing transportation to the passenger. sufficient, we believe, if expectation such shown to be a substantial factor.”
Taylor Goldstein, 161, 165, Mass. 14, 16, 107 N.E.2d injured in which was being while driven defendant secure a suitcase lend to defendant, states: “The rule deducible from these decisions is that a plaintiff acquires the status of an invitee if he is with the defend- ant for the conferring a benefit in performance something which the defendant has an provided interest the benefit is other than intangible ‘those advantages arising from mere social intercourse’ [citation]; that the benefit need pecuniary not be of a nature; and that it need not arise from a contractual relationship.”
In Porterfield, Kleinhesselink v. 577, 584, 76 S. D. 195, 196, a father drove his son from The buying cattle. market, for advice cattle Dakota a South for himself. buy did some but son bought cattle father injured. decision states: was son return On the by a having motivated desire been transportation “The judgment in son’s benefit of the for the part of the father having entered buying cattle, and son selecting and they a contract entered into proof purpose, car for that a conclusion thereto was not essential with reference inapplicable.” statute ' because the two were contention that With reference motivating rea- companions this was affectionate close trip, decision states: for the son *7 sociability as added impels the conclusion that such
“Reason pri- its incidental to was but of their mission pleasure the to mary purpose.” by cited Owens,
Haas v. 248 Iowa seventy-five cent contribu point. not in It held a appellants, is Dubuque to Des trip in a gasoline tion to the and oil bill from the plaintiff insufficient remove Moines was to Vehicles, S., Motor in 60 C. J. of the statute. The text 399.5(b), section page states: general of wide expenses.
“Effect a rule sharing is operating car on a acceptance sharing that cost of the the pleasure purposes trip, when is undertaken for social on, by, or such and the invitation is not motivated conditioned contribution, exchange of ameni- nothing than the social more paying passenger one' who ties and does transform into guest.” exchange without would In at that James Ritter took the ease bar the evidence request Dexter, automobile, the short in Dexter at the ride Jr., help the fender skirts to latter look the stolen issue, guest, that was not a sufficient make the James Ritter proof of fact. The was sufficient take one also assigned -by jury. Hence, appellants that issue to the the errors founded.—Affirmed. are not well J., C. and Bliss, Garfield,
Thompson, Garrett, Peterson, JJ., and concur. Thornton, JJ., dissent, Hays,
Larson and (dissenting) respectfully J. must with dissent Larson, —I majority. I can see no substantial difference the evidence prior herein submitted and that ease of McBride unanimously wherein N.W.2d we recovery. denied only plaintiff difference—a mere statement go along help him to his asked search for lost fender
skirts —is not evidence, sufficient when light viewed permit the other testimony, speculate upon ques- plaintiff tion as to whether had established a definite relation- ship between tangible himself and the driver which a benefit would accrue to or be conferred the defendant. quite accruing
The rule this clear. state The benefit to or conferred upon operator, person sufficient to take the him guest class, tangible out of one must be a growing out of relationship. a definite McBride v. supra; 1300, 1301, 15 Motors, Thuente v. Hart 234 Iowa N.W.2d 622. they
Here there no dispute happened as what after reached Walcott. The two carloads of drove around the looking for skirts, café, ate, block twice then entered drank soft drinks, and Davenport. returned to How does any tangible indicate contemplated, or establish definite relationship plaintiff between driver?
I sympathy too have family, but *8 I can no real see distinction between this case and the other where recovery guest. McBride was denied because he was a evidence discloses than more a sociable wherein all venture seeking were adventure, although excitement and perhaps plaintiff’s size, suggested by counsel, as his made presence desirable, not for the purpose finding skirts, fighting but for By case a brawl trying should occur. distinguish cases, between two nothing these we have done aid the Bar Bench and as to when one has shown himself a guest and passenger. when a