Strauser v. Bryant

217 N.W.2d 706

Iowa

1974

Check Treatment

Larry STRAUSER, Appellant, v. Johnny Virgil BRYANT, Appellee.

No. 56491.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 24, 1974.

217 N.W.2d 706

point out that, contrary to the statement from Hessler v. Ford, 255 Iowa 1055, 1059, 125 N.W.2d 132, 134 (1963), quoted with approval in the majority opinion, only 22 states still have guest statutes. No state has enacted one since 1939. Several have fallen.

Iowa now has the nation‘s oldest guest statute. Connecticut and Oregon also enacted guest statutes in 1927. Malcolm, Automobile Guest Law, § 3 at 2 (1937). The Connecticut statute was repealed in 1937. Conn.Gen.Stat. § 340(E) (Supp.1939). The Oregon statute was held unconstitutional in Stewart v. Houk, 127 Or. 589, 271 P. 998 (1928). A new Oregon statute was enacted in 1929. Vermont repealed its guest statute in 1970, and Florida repealed its statute in 1972. 5 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice, § 211.3 (Third Ed. 1966, 1973 Supp.). Kentucky‘s statute was held unconstitutional in Ludwig v. Johnson, 243 Ky. 533, 49 S.W.2d 347 (1932); California‘s statute was held unconstitutional in Brown v. Merlo, supra; Kansas’ guest statute was held unconstitutional in Henry v. Bauder, supra; and North Dakota‘s statute was held unconstitutional in Johnson v. Hassett, supra. See notes, 23 Drake L.Rev. 216 (1973); 4 Memphis State L.Rev. 197 (1973); 49 Notre Dame Lawyer 446 (1973).

I believe the recent California, Kansas and North Dakota decisions, all striking guest statutes on equal protection grounds, demonstrate appropriate sensitivity to the task of responsible constitutional analysis, are well reasoned, and are persuasive authority for striking the Iowa statute on the same basis.

For the reasons given, not involving any mere question of public policy, I would hold the Iowa guest statute, Code § 321.494, violates the equal protection guarantees of Article I, § 6, Iowa Constitution, and Amendment 14, United States Constitution. In doing so I do not dispute the legislative right to regulate motor vehicle liability but maintain such regulation may not infringe constitutional safeguards.

The classification in the guest statute which protects owners or operators of motor vehicles from some passenger claims based on the driver‘s ordinary negligence treats such passengers differently than other persons similarly situated, does not bear a fair and substantial relation to any reasonably conceivable legislative purpose for the statute, and is inherently irrational. The guest statute is thus invidiously discriminatory and cannot be squared with the constitutional assurance of equal protection of the laws.

I would reverse the trial court.

MASON, RAWLINGS and REYNOLDSON, JJ., join in this dissent.

Alfred A. Beardmore, and Frye, McCartney & Erb, Charles City, for appellant.

Laird, Burington, Bovard & Heiny, Mason City, for appellee.

MOORE, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff Larry Strauser filed a petition against defendant Johnny Virgil Bryant alleging he sustained damages from injuries received as a passenger in a motor vehicle owned and operated by defendant when it overturned due to defendant‘s negligent driving. Defendant moved to dismiss the petition on the basis of its failure to state a cause of action under the Iowa guest statute, Code § 321.494. Plaintiff resisted, alleging the guest statute is unconstitutional because it denies equal protection of the laws under Article I, § 6, Iowa Constitution, and Amendment 14, United States Constitution. Trial court sustained the motion to dismiss.

In Keasling v. Thompson, filed separately this date, we held the guest statute constitutional on the same issues involved here.

Trial court did not err in sustaining the motion to dismiss.

Affirmed.

LeGRAND, REES and UHLENHOPP, JJ., concur.

HARRIS, J., concurs in the result.

Special concurrence by LeGRAND, J., joined in by UHLENHOPP and HARRIS, JJ.

Dissent by McCORMICK, J., joined in by MASON, RAWLINGS and REYNOLDSON, JJ.

LeGRAND, Justice (concurring specially).

I adopt as a special concurrence in this case the concurring opinion filed today in Keasling v. Thompson, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 687.

UHLENHOPP and HARRIS, JJ., concur herein.

McCORMICK, Justice (dissenting).

I respectfully dissent for the reasons expressed in my written dissent in Keasling v. Thompson, Iowa, 217 N.W.2d 687, filed separately this date.

MASON, RAWLINGS, and REYNOLDSON, JJ., join in this dissent.