OCR Text |
Show MONDAY, APRIL 1,1974' PAGE ELEVEN 1NTERMOUNTAIN COMMERCIAL RECORD State of In The Supreme Court of The or not attacking the problem at all. Citation It is enough that the State1! action be rationally based and free from invidious discrimination HENRIOD, Justice: .... I concur, except to say that I can see no relevancy whatever in the case of And r us v. Allred, cited in the opinion, as to the facts or problems involved in the instant case. The use of the motor vehicle upon the public highways has been validly subjected to legislative regulation. The presence of the guest in this area would itself create a basis for a distinct classification from other guests located, where there was no overwhelming public interest. The motor vehicle exerts a dominant influence in contemporary society and its use creates many economic and social problems. In a state such as Utah a significant portion of our economic resources must be devoted to the construction and maintenance of highways; the economic burden bears a direct relationship to the number of vehicles and the total cumulative mileage on the highways each year. The guest statute encourages hospitality and directly affects the number of vehicles present on the highways, thus avoiding traffic congestion and wear to the surfaces of the roadway. The guest statute promotes the conservation of petroleum and other natural resources consumed in highway travel. , The suggestion that the burden of the injured guest should be bourne by the motoring public through liability insurance is an economic and social solution that is properly subject to legislative determination. The Legislature is the proper forum to consider the alternative solutions for the problem of :he injured guest. The No Fault Insurance Act, et. seq. , J. C.A. 1953, provides a compromise, the guest receives limited :ompensation for injuries, while hospitality is encouraged by not exposing he host to unlimited liability and staggering insurance rates. The luggested simplistic solution that the motoring public should bear the ,:osts of the injured guests ignores the economic consequence that claims will be reflected in increased insurance rates, creating in economic hardship on the generous host and chilling hospitality. 31-41- 10. 11. 12. 24 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. CROCKETT, Justice: (Concurring specially) am impelled to forswear joining in expatiation upon a case of a sister state, which we decline to follow anyway. In addition to the not being binding on us in any event, it is decided against a background of law significantly different from our own, and it impresses me as mainly concerned with rationalizations toward a desired result of repudiating their statute. I - ed Consequently, I desire to state briefly my own reasons for refusing to strike down our own: 1, U. C. A. 1953, was enacted to provide some projSection ection to a generous host, who is sued by his invited guest for ordinary egligence, when the rider has given no compensation as an inducement or making the trip or furnishing the carriage for the rider. This act ubserved a valid legislative purpose to encourage hospitality in the use f the public highways. Furthermore, the automobile guest in this juris -iction is not placed in a distinct classification, where he alone as a icipient of generosity is deprived of the duty of due care by his host. 41-9-- the court stated that the second justification was the r the guest statute prevention of collusive lawsuits. The classi-- : ation in the statute was allegedly predicated on the concept that a driver to gave a free ride to a passenger was motivated by his close relationship th his guest, and the driver might admit liability to assist the guest in llecting from the insurance company. The court rejected this rationale the ground that though prior caselaw intrafamily tort immunity had been jected. The court cited Klein v. Klein wherein it rejected a claim that 9 possibility of fraudulent lawsuits between a husband and wife served as mfficient justification to bar all interspousal negligence actions. In this court held that a wife may not maintain a balcava v. Gissexnan, or his estate. This court declined to follow husband t action against her m tin v. Klein and stated that the legislature and not this court was the to change this rule. Thus in Utah the guest statute does not create Istinct classification for automobile guests as compared to others insofar 513 of 32 A. L. R. 3d. 117. 74L.Ed. 221, 50SLCt. 57 (1929). Z80U.S. of 280 U.S. At p. 122-12- 3 123-1of 280 U.S. At p. 397 U..S. 471.. 485, .486 --.487, 90 S. .CI. 1153. 25 L. Ed. 2d 491 (1970). Jensen v. Mower, 4 Utah 2d 336, 294 P. 2d 683 (195b). Note 1, supra. 58Cal.2d 692, 26 CalRptr. 102, 376 P. 2d 70 (1962). 14 Utah 2d 344, 384 P. 2d 389 (1963). Note 1, supra. 17 Utah 2d 106, 404 P."2d 972 (1965). At p. 110 of 17 Utah 2d. Dandridge v. Williams, note 13, supra. Footnotes, p. 9. -1, in-leas- (Concurring) (1) Our guest statute was enacted by the legislature advisedly, to alleviate actual abuses which had occurred, and were 1 occurring. In Brown v. Merlo (2) Although it has not completely cured the ills it was aimed at, when properly applied, it has had the salutary effect of minimizing them. (3) It has been in effect for over 40 years. Inasmuch as it came into being as an expression of the will of the people through legislative enactment, if there is to be any such substantial and important change in the law it should be by that same process, and not by judicial pronouncement. See discussion of justification of this statute based on the use of automobiles as such an essential and important aspect of modern living that it is an appropriate subject for special classification and legislation thereon, and the salutary purposes justifying the statute as set forth by Justice Worthen in Jensen.v. Mower, 4 Utah 2d 336, 294 P. 2d 683; and see also 'Andrus v. Allred, 17 Utah. 2d 106, 404 P. 2d 972. 2. Originally enacted in Chap. 52, S. L. U. 1935. , 517 P. 2d 1010, and Utah 2d 3. See statement Stanton v. Stanton, 1. pro-foru- . , :ollusive lawsuits are concerned. 18 1, U. C. A. this court stated that Section 953, should be given a sufficiently practical and reasonable application to over incidents which occur as an integral part of the ride. This court to give the statute such a narrow and literal interpretation as to elimi-tat- e incidents which might occur while the vehicle was stopped, however riefly and for any purpose. This court stated: ,tf In Andrus v. Allred, 41-9-- de-lin- ed It is our opinion that a sensible and realistic application of this statute, in conformity with its objective, requires that relationship the protection extend over the entire host-gue- st the of the ride. and the with connection taking in giving the into include also must host-gue- st here getting relationship comis ride when the of out it car at the beginning and getting in the course of and which incidents and happen any pleted , arising out of the ride ... .... I The interpretation of the guest statute by this court has averted the which disturbed the court alleged irrationality in the statutory classification Clause does not Protection the Equal in Brown v. Merlo. Furthermore, to refrain from any or of a problem compel the State to attack every aspect action at all; it is sufficient that the 21State's action be rationally based .and free from invidious discrimination. The rulings of the trial courts in these actions sustaining the consti1. U.C.A. 1953, are affirmed. Costs are awarded tutionality of Section ' ' to defendants. 41-9-- . Uniform Commercial Code Flings LESTER THORUP ft JANICE .NIEL- SEN, 235 S. 2nd E. to Zions 1st Nat. Bk; furn. PHILLIPS 3375 Nat. 1. 8Cal.3d 855. 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P. 2d 212' (1973), 2. Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal.2d 108, 70 CaLRptr. 97, 443 P. 2d 561, 32 A. L.R. 3d 496 (1968). t 3. No. 6 at p. 219 of 506 P. 2d. 4. Note 2, supra. P. 2d 496 (1970)8 Wood o": Lake County, 25 UUhlHfiT v. .v. Wood, 8 Utah 2d 279, 333 P. 2d 630 (1959); v.Tempest Downing, 112 Utah5$8, 5 Utah 2d 174, 299 P.2d 124 (1956); Hayward 7. Note 1, tupra. 8. Note 2, supra. 189 P. 2d 442 (1948). Bc1'd I ELECTRONIC, 850 SLC Zions to S., E. 33 S. No. ROBERT & Ut RICHARD SON, Dial Fin. Co.; hhg. 1347 L. & JEANINE ROBINS 1483 S. 720 W., Wood Ut to Barlow Coach & cross, Trailer Sales; Stand. A. RIDGES, 4381 S. 2490 E., SLC 84117 to Zions 1st Nat. Bk; Home furnishings, FRED T. & SONDRA ROMYN, 3072 W. 3200 S., Bntlf, Ut 84010 SLC Bk; TV. DILW0RTH STRASSER, 1615 May- -. SLC Zions to fair Cir., 1st Nat. Bk; Camper. DEWEY H. & DORIS T. SWEETEN, SLC 2681 Verona Cr., to Zions 1st Nat. Bk; unlisted. GEORGE H. SPECIALS, 647 Eliz- ebeth St., SLC to Zions 1st Nat. Bk; Sailboat, & trlr, D. TALBERT KENNETH & JUDY, D.& DEWEAN LUND, 9905 Segolily Dr., Sandy, Ut to Dial Fin. Co.; hhg. EARL Bk; MRS. MILLDRED STRAND, 2955 Mtn View Dr. , SLC Dial Fin. to Co; hhg. TOWENA A. 3rd R. WHITATCH, Mobile 1st 115 W. Ut.to Zions 4000 S., Sandy, Nat.; Honda. INC., 4300 S. 2nd W., Mur., Ut 84107 to FMA Leasing. Co.; Stabilize! FOUNTAIN OF YOUTH, PO Box KREGE B. "CHRISTENSEN, FMA SLC 84111 to 11066, Leasing Co.; Calculator. 1885 TOOLING WEST, INC., S., SLC 84119 to G. MELVIN & JOY CORNWELL, 53 S. 990 W., W. FMA Leasing Co.; Calculator. Mur., Ut 64 84-1- 07 to Ben. Fin. Co. of Ut; Camper. MELVIN E. GLINES & 13th S., Fin. Co.; hhg. 1312 W. JUNETTE, SLC MICHAEL & ANN PATMIDES, SLC 84115 to 9th S., Fin.; hhg. SCHMERTZ, SLC 84102 S., Fin. Serv. Co.; 1032 E. to Avco & hhg. Con. ERNST G. & HELEN CHRISTEN, 354 Adams St. "A", Midvale Ut to Avco Fin. Serv; Con. & hhg. to BLYELE, 4922 Field-cre- st Lane, Holiday, Ut Avco Fin. Serv; Con. hhg. A. BALDWIN, Hincley, Ut to Delta 1st Sec. Bk. of Ut; Boat, motor, & trlr. RAY Homes . CLARENCE ' Fin. Co.; hhg. & to Zions 1st Nat. to Dial SLC RALPH & JOYCE TINGEY, 1944 Nevada, SLC 84108 to Dial WALLY'S SLC PATRICIA SERLE, Fin. Co.; hhg. SHAWNDRA INC., & 19105 , PO Box 84117 MOBILE HOMES, D. HAROLD 3219 Cantwell, Grngr, Ut to Save Way Trlr Sales; Campei 2221 S. Redwood Rd., BREWER, 823 Hanover, 84102 to Dial Fin Co; hhg. RICHARD to Zions 1st Nat. to D. & JANET KNIGHT, 1150 Ramona, SLC 84106 to Canyon Park Rd., Bntlf to plaza Cycle; Snowmobile, E SLC 3, ROBERT E. MYRTLE COLLEEN PALMER, B-- Dial Fin. Co.; hhg., 1st Bk; Camper. IS SAC SON, 2215 & KATHY JEFFERY 206, SLC 2300 SSi'v.'wS' . ( authorities therein cited. that the numerous statutory The court stated in Brown v. Merlo of recovery under the guest statute eptions had rendered recovery or lack gely fortuitous and added another element of irrationality to the statutory leme. The court explained that the relationship giving rise to liability :ween the driver and occupant might fluctuate during the course of a single le, as circumstances brought them within and without the language of the itute. The court observed that the statute distinguished guests on the basis (1) whether or not the journey had come to a momentary halt; (2) whether e guest was physically located inside pr outside the car; (3) whether the car is on a public highway or private land. The court found that these statutory cceptions operated so illogically as to cause serious inequality and that they .d not bear the remotest relation to either the objective of protecting hospi-ilit- y or preventing collusive lawsuits. The court concluded that under these ircumstances, the limiting provisions of the statute constituted a further enial of equal protection. i 2 to Dial 362 Dial WRIGTH WAY COMPANY, 2517 Bl- ake Dr., to Deseret Leasing Co.; unlisted. D & D SALES, INC., dba Factory SLC Dis, 435 W. 4th S., SLC to Assoc, Capital Co., Inc; hhg. J & L DISTRIBUTING, INC., 765 W. 500 S., PO 15132, SLC to The' Muro Co.; Molding machine. J DISTRIBUTE, INC, 1765 500 S., PO Box 16132, to The Muro Co.; Molding & L W. SLC Machine. RIDER PLASTICS INC., 150 Stratford Ave., Muro Co; Molding SLC W. to The Machine. B. RINDLESBACK, 13876 S. 2200 W. , River ton, Ut to Walker Bk. & TrustCo.; 'JACK |