Title: Heim v. Werth

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

214 Kan. 855 (1974)
522 P.2d 389
AMBROSE HEIM, Appellant,
v.
DONALD WERTH, Appellee.
No. 47,318

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed May 11, 1974.
Frank C. Norton and William L. Winkley, Salina, were on the brief for the appellant.
Howard G. Engleman, Salina, was on the brief for the appellee.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
NEGLIGENCE  Guest Statute Unconstitutional  Case Remanded.
Per Curiam:
This is an appeal in a damage action wherein Ambrose Heim (plaintiff-appellant) sustained injuries alleged to have been caused by the negligence of Donald Werth (defendant-appellee), while Heim was a passenger in Werth's automobile. Only simple negligence was alleged in the petition, and the trial court sustained defendant's motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff was a "guest"  that the guest statute, K.S.A. 8-122b, applied.
The sole question is whether the record before the trial court was sufficient to declare the plaintiff a guest as a matter of law.
In Smith v. Engel, 206 Kan. 298, 299, 300, 477 P.2d 937, we said:
Also, see, Vaughn v. Murray, 214 Kan. 456, 521 P.2d 262.
There was evidence showing the plaintiff and the defendant were working on the same project for the same employer at Smith Center, Kansas, located 135 miles from Salina, where the parties resided. Defendant began work on April 10, 1972, and the plaintiff began on April 17, 1972. The day before the plaintiff started working he called the defendant and stated there was no need to use two cars. The defendant then said he would drive his car and plaintiff stated he would compensate the defendant. Plaintiff rode to Smith Center with defendant on Monday, April 17. The plaintiff did not have *856 occasion to ride with the defendant on the following Friday or Monday. However on Friday, April 28, the plaintiff rode with the defendant to Salina and when they reached Salina, the plaintiff paid the defendant $3. The plaintiff claimed it was for the cost of gasoline. Defendant said he would drive next week. On Monday, May 1, on the way to Smith Center, the accident occurred.
Plaintiff and defendant were not personal friends nor did they socialize. The sole purpose of the ride was the business of getting to and from work.
In Bedenbender v. Walls, 177 Kan. 531, 538, 280 P.2d 630, while holding the guest statute applied, we said, "There was no relationship of mutual benefit between or among them other than of a social nature". Here there are other benefits, and the relationship was not of a social nature. (See, Rothwell v. Transmeier, 206 Kan. 199, 203, 477 P.2d 960; Rogers v. Wahl, 210 Kan. 352, 502 P.2d 716; quoting Gorelick v. Ernstein, 200 Kan. 619, 438 P.2d 93.)
Since the evidence discloses the commuting from Salina to Smith Center was purely for business purposes, and not social; that payments were promised and made; sufficient questions of fact were raised and the motion for summary judgment should not have been sustained.
In Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 518 P.2d 362, opinion filed January 26, 1974, we held the Kansas guest statute unconstitutional.
In Vaughn v. Murray, supra, we held:
The trial court committed reversible error in sustaining the *857 motion for summary judgment finally entered on August 7, 1973. Appeal was made therefrom and pending here January 26, 1974.
The ruling in Vaughn is applicable here and the matter is remanded for further proceedings as stated in Vaughn.
The defendant claims the plaintiff's appeal was not timely made. Summary judgment was rendered July 17, 1973. Notice of appeal was filed August 17, 1973, or 31 days after summary judgment was filed. K.S.A. 60-2103 (a) provides:
and K.S.A. 60-252 (b) provides:
The plaintiff, on July 26, 1973, filed a motion for rehearing, asking the court to correct its findings and to set aside its findings in the July 17 decision. This motion was heard on August 7, 1973, and denied. Appeal was taken August 17, 1973, from the order of July 17, 1973, and also from the order of August 7, 1973, denying the plaintiff's motion for rehearing.
In Ten Eyck v. Harp, 197 Kan. 529, 533, 419 P.2d 922, we said:
The motion herein did seek to "alter or amend the judgment of the district court", consequently, the time for filing an appeal commenced August 7, 1973.
*858 The motion to dismiss is denied, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings as above directed.