*1 papers taken, front him. all the When burdening lawyers well without decision, in and the court at letters, arrived his necessity with the reading apparently disintegrated, subject filial affection action, paying of this for their Ranquist took himself out publication Sys- Brother Harold Reporter in the National withdrawing from it. this case tem. here, Stanley Ranquist, litigant Brother good attorney in

promptly employed another CROCKETT, CALLISTER, J., and C. him standing, just promptly fired ELLETT, JJ., concur. TUCKETT and days Ranquist took over ten later. about se,” few skir- “pro and after a

the case court, personally the trial

mishes court. to this area of combat

moved say gentleman, this it to

Suffice just, just was cause to him seems whose P. 2d702 seeking saying in his brief error in This, get just it. quick justice, he didn’t MUKASEY, Appellant, Plaintiff and Michael period, had, four-year seems after he over justice effectively prevented the to have AARON, S. Defendant Robert Respondent. indulging in a justify, by he seeks to

which maneuvers, delaying paper-strewn series No. 11008. ad- amendments, involving demands Supreme of Utah. Court missions, interrogatories, and dozens this, it reason all belies doing In others. March jus- denial of claimed conclude himself. engendered by others tice it, record, pages of

This —is —over he justice travesty on aof

somewhat

claims. had may may not have

Ranquist Ap- breach of contract.

complaint based on resolved, but at matter was

parently this ap- urged on this has not been rate point of libel

peal. appeal His on the sole fatuous, and we decide

seems somewhat

Rawlings, Wallace, Black, Roberts & Dibblee, Richard C. City, Salt Lake plaintiff appellant. and n Bayle, Lauchnor, Hurd & R. Wallace Lauchnor, City, Salt Lake for defendant respondent. and TUCKETT, Justice. plaintiff

The commenced this action personal injuries recover for arising out of an automobile At time of accident. granted the lower court a sum- mary judgment in favor of the defendant against and plaintiff. plaintiff

The awas resident of the State of New York and defendant was a Jersey. resident of New The college During students and friends. they summer of decided to travel to- gether to the western of the United employment States to seek and to see OQK working jobs in After at various Company, West. the plaintiff and the defendant Colorado, plain- and proceeded states of Utah way on toward California. proceed to tiff defendant decided to The agreed and the defendant visit brother. they California to with defendant’s expenses would share of the auto- They proceeded city to the of Denver where they mobile and that share they the Atlantic-Pacific Drive- driving Angeles. contacted automobile to Los Aways Company which had an automobile leaving they proceeded After Denver Angeles, place Utah, they be driven to Los California. Huntington, near where Mukasey signed a contract with com- slept following night. in the car over pany deposit pursuant and made morning the defendant $25 drove automo- the terms of the The owner of they proceeded contract. bile way. their sunny automobile was Felix Com- day Chevrolet weather was clear was California, pany Angeles, of Los Visibility good. and warm. theAs Drive-Aways Denver, Company at approached Colo- defendant the left curve to rado, agent speed owner in se- approximately per at a 50 miles curing a driver to take the automobile hour the left highway automobile provisions California. One of overturned. Both and defend- *3 by plaintiff the injured. contract entered ant were It appears into that ac- the as follows: cident because occurred either the defend- sharpness ant the failed to observe the of agreed

I have the car to drive owner’s that he curve or failed the to slow auto- alone, pick up pas- that I and will not sufficiently permit mobile the to curve to hitchhikers, sengers, etc., will I use nor negotiated be safety. towing purposes. said car for trucking or The pretrial court at the time had of the plaintiff The claims that the de depositions it the plaintiff before the of and fendant guilty of willful misconduct in the defendant which the contained testi- approaching speed the curve at a of 50 mony parties of the which been would have per maintaining prop miles hour without a jury upon submitted to the court or to a failing er lookout and in to observe that the trial testimony of the case. The the of negotiated curve could not be at that rate parties essentially is without conflict. speed.1 of plaintiff

After possession the had taken The trial opinion court was of the that of the automobile from the Drive-Aways the evidence favorably most construed in plaintiff 1. In the trial Statute), court tlie inapplicable, viz., advanced (1) that the two guilty contentions which he claimed made defendant was of willful misconduct 41-9-1, (The Section operation U.C.A.1953 automobile; Guest of the and 38.6 the are essential to establish- position would ments which plaintiff’s

support! the of enterprise joint ment of a follows: guilty of that the defendant was not show negligence, further simple more a elements which are essential to The issue willful miscon- that there was no of enterprise commonly be joint are stated to jury. a With we duct submit to this agreement, express im- (1) four: an agree. plied, among group; the members of the purpose

(2) a be common carried out contends plaintiff further The by group; (3) pe- of community engaged were and the defendant that he cuniary among purpose, interest in that negligence enterprise, that joint in a members; equal (4) right an operation in part of defendant enterprise, voice in the direction of the plaintiff entitles the motor vehicle of gives equal right which an of control. showing willful recovery without a of opinion that the evi are of are accord with We misconduct. We in favorably in dence viewed most engaged of parties if the record general rule that were that behalf would not show relationship enterprise that joint in a parties joint engaged were enter from he sufficient to remove case prise. testimony show would at most provisions are of the statute. We parties agreed had to travel in accord with the that where also rule purpose seeking em California for relationship existence of the issue an ployment; purpose seeing for the question is one of fact to be deter states; western jury mined the court or the as finder of visiting friends The evi and relatives. At the fact. of the time object dence fails to show that testimony of the witnesses was before the pur a common business journey involved court. pecuniary inter pose that a financial or joint relationship enter to show which is essential est was involved by way engaged joint generally contract.2 prise arises joint enterprise.4 forth The restatement of law sets the ele- venture or 2d, (2) Law, Torts, Sec- and defendant were Restatement joint enterprise. plain engaged in a *4 tion 491. Blackham, 164, appeal 417 are the same. 4. Hall Utah 2d tiff’s contentions on v. 18 Brody 664; Harris, Mich. we not P.2d v. 308 That do not consider matters 573; 234, 273, by A.L.R. raised see Hamilton Salt N.W.2d 155 v. County 1187, Sewerage Imp. 1, Briggs, Lake Dist. No. v. 225 Iowa Churchill 216, 15 Utah 2d 390 P.2d 235. N.W. 280. Peterson, 2. Carboneau 1 Wash.2d P.2d QQ7 opinion that are of the court operation We for the vehicle from lia- ruling in evidence be- bility was correct injury for death or of such relationship guest fore failed to show proximately resulting from in- enterprise ex- joint joint adventure or toxication or misconduct willful of such nothing owner, and that there to submit isted person responsible driver or for * * * jury. perceive operation vehicle; to a no errors We of such rulings below and its [Emphasis court decision added.] is defendant. affirmed. Costs to 41-9-2. “Guest” defined. For purpose “guest” of this term section the CROCKETT, J.,C. CALLlSTER hereby is being person defined as who HENRIOD, JJ., concur. .and accepts' any in ride vehicle without giving compensation therefor. ELLETT, (dissenting). Justice A reading casual of the statute shows majority opinion I dissent. The com- guest is the who cannot recover from pounds the in the trial error made court host, and it matters whether judge. They trial below counsel and the host owns simply or automobile riding assumption all make the that one person driving responsible op- for the in an cannot recover from the automobile eration of the car. The of the except arising injuries driver from statute protection was to afford willful misconduct or intoxication on the charge person or other owner in of an au- guest as driver. Our statute gives pas- tomobile who a free ride to a set forth in Utah Code Annotated 1953 is senger. As is said Motor Vehi- C.J.S. as follows: b, (3) p. cles 399 at 995: § Responsibility 41-9-1. of owner or * ** apparent design and [T]he guest. Any person driver aof vehicle to — effect of such are to make statutes accepts any guest who as a ride duty of the host less onerous before vehicle, public moving upon by relieving liability him of to his Utah, highways and while of the state of for mere failure to exercise due care and riding gitest so as receives or sus- such to make him only higher for such liable injury, right have tains an shall no degree of provided misconduct for there- recovery against or driver or the owner * * in; *. responsible operation person * * * Nothing apply persons such in this only vehicle. Guest statutes to such relieving the passengers shall be as come section construed within contem- person responsible statute, plation particular owner or driver or and as to *5 388 file, person together

any common law rules admissions on other of affidavits, liability C.J.S., any, if that there is no govern. care and See 60 show supra, p. genuine issue material fact 997. as to that the moving party is entitled to a opinion showing The main cites no case ** * a judgment as matter law. of guest when the that a host cannot sue a [Emphasis added.] injured by ordinary negligent host is summary driving guest, think the trial a of and one would Here court entered case, dismissal, judgment have because the de- that if there was such a of My no a cited. has revealed fendant was entitled to as matter research been of law, nature, lawyer thought he had a it seem but because the such nor does case of give part is to to show willful misconduct on statute furnishing guest a driver. counsel at protection to one is not Plaintiff’s who guest. pretrial a contended that the defendant free ride to negligent respects: (a) excessive three guest driving host’s car his While lookout, speed, improper (c) fail- (b) exactly guests in relation to other stands control, keep proper car ure to under host,1 far different this is a as does thereof amounted to that the combination the host sus- case where matter confer- willful misconduct. guest’s neg- injury tains as result time can and the court ence is when driving. ligent simplify should as- should the issues. He permits guest his ts drive a host When issues, that no formulating so sist counsel agent car, guest he makes justice It miscarriage will occur. car, driving and the purpose of pas- judge sit function to not the guest of the driver not become host does sively by litigant lose a and allow a guest statute covered our so as to be good simply counsel perfectly case because out. above set upon a making argument an based may be requires assumption as law to what the false a motion matter determined on This particular case. summary 56(c), U.R. judgment. Rule 1955, provides fol- C.P., as amended in claiming negligent plaintiff was Here the : lows despite guest; and driving * * * sought inability majority of this court judgment shall be judge depo- the trial pleadings, point, I think see the rendered forthwith if misconduct sitions, interrogatories, and noted that willful have answers to should (1937). 384, 109 Mittleman, Herzog A.L.R. Or. P.2d necessary was a element for

prove against guest he only driver if

sought punitive damages. give guest

To driving who is his host’s advantage

car the statute is entirety

rewrite statute in its *6 apart

set Utah from all other states regard.

Union in that

This case should be to the remanded

lower court for a trial issues

negligence on the defendant damages, any, if sustained

as a result thereof. The should

have his costs incurred herein.

438 P.2d 706

H. Grant Johnson, JOHNSON and Helen wife, Appellants, Plaintiffs

SALT LAKE COUNTY COTTONWOOD DISTRICT, SANITARY Defend- Respondent. ant and

No. 11077.

Supreme Court of Utah.

March