Putnam patriot., 1929-12-19
STATE STATUTES
 CONSTITUTIONAL
Guest Passengers in Automo. biies Must Prove Intention
 in Suing Host
nstsrs PsesIi.riy ssbj~<s so Lexisla-
 tive Rexzl4sio=

Tastlrxtan. D. C Special to Tke Pat ran Patriot W hat e regarded here a. ere ef tEs nos interesting 1eeis- lons handed down ng tke Supreme Cozrt ef the Tnitaa States ss seen ia tke recent opinion of tee Court de- ElarlrT ecusrlt-ti8nal chapter sos ef ths 1927 laws af Carneersest releas- ing cwners ard aperaTrrH 1E meter vehicles from respgas isilssv for h. iuriea 70 gvests transported rraszl- toasy in treIr sEteEa1eiles zrlsss tnz injuries were incurred fr sce.1ezss ezassd intentionally e hy needless 1r reckless disregard cf octer4
 The raiirg of the Supreme Cezrr 1pkoldir9 the consrI.at5onaiiEy of tae 5 ConneetEezt ssasate came as a result sf ar appeal from 8 judgment of the Supreme Court of Conneetieus 1r- hoI1inw the stzte statute.
 Justice Stone delivered the opinion Of the United States Supreme Co1rz. reporting the findings of fhs courr as feliozx.
 This is an appeal under section 237 of the judicial code. zs amended bv the act Of Febrzzry I5. 1928. from a judgment cf the Supreme Court of Connectiegt urholding the e1nst5r9tloaaiity Of a state statute. chapter 50s Of the pubic acts of Connecticut Of 1927, providing that no person carried zrzszito1sly As a guest To an automobile may recover from the owner CT operator for ir- jurIss caused by its negligent opera tion.
 The appellant brought sui. in the Superior Court of New Haven Csgnty against appellee, her husband. for injuries co zustaired- Judgment for t1e defendant wss affirmed by the Supreme Court Both courts ruled that the statute barred appellant. a guest carried grat1itousiy, from re- ecwerv for injuries caused by or1in- zry negligence in the operation Of the car. and the Supreme Court. by dIyid- ed bench. held that the statute did nos deny io appellant the equal pro teeti0n of laws guaranteed 5y the fourteenth amendment
 Grounds Undiselosed
 sAs the record dces not disclose the constitutional grounds on which 2 AfEE S#fEaAaaAa HaAa- Es4 aAeE eaAssaaAHN of the statute. our review wili be limited 70 the single question arising under the Federal Constitution which vas considered iu the opinien of the court Ia the ease Of saltouEtall vs. saltenstalL We need n9t, therefore. elaborate the rule that the CoustItu- ton does net forbid the creation of new rights. or the abolition of old ones recognized by the common law. to attain a permissible legislative eb- ieet.
 The use Of she automobile as an instrument Of transportation 6 peeu- iiarly the subject Of regulation We cannot assume that there are no exis to be corrected, or permissible social objects fo be gained by the present statute. We are not unaware Of the ] increasing frequency of litigation in which passengers carried gratuitous- , ly !n automobiles. often casual guests or licensees. have sought the recovery of large sums for injuries alleged to have been due 10 negligent operation.
 ''In some jurisdictions t has been 2 judieiaily determined that a lower standard of care should be exacted where the carriage in any type of vehicle is gratuitous. Whether there ! has been a serious increase in the evils of yexatious litigation in this class of cases. where the carriage is by auto mobile. is for legislative determina- tion and. if found, may well be the basis Of legislative acticn further re- stricting the liability. It's wisdom is not the concern of courts
 Not Arbitrary
 eIt is said that the vice in the statute Is not that it distinguishes between passengers who pay and those who do net. but between gra- tuitous passengers in automobiles and those in other classes Of vehicles. But it ia not so evident that no grounds exist for the distinction that we can say a priori that the classification is one forbidden as without basis. and arbitrary
 Granted that the liability to be