Title: Sullivan v. Davis
Citation: 83 So. 2d 434
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 3, 1955

83 So. 2d 434 (1955)
Malcolm Leo SULLIVAN
v.
Willie Mae DAVIS.
3 Div. 723.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 3, 1955.
Rehearing Denied November 28, 1955.
L. H. Walden and Rushton, Stakely &amp; Johnston, Montgomery, for appellant.
Cates &amp; Huddleston, Montgomery, for appellee.
MAYFIELD, Justice.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff-appellee, Willie Mae Davis, rendered by the circuit court of Montgomery County.
Plaintiff's action was brought against two defendants: Sullivan, the appellant, who was the driver of the automobile in which Willie Mae Davis, the appellee, was a passenger, and Boddie, who was the driver *435 of the automobile which collided with the appellant Sullivan's car. The first count of plaintiff's complaint charged negligence, and the second wantonness. The verdict of the jury was in favor of defendant Boddie and in favor of the plaintiff, but against the defendant Sullivan under the negligence count of the complaint.
The single issue presented by this appeal is whether or not the plaintiff was a guest in the automobile of the defendant Sullivan, at the time of the injury, within the meaning of the Code of 1940, Title 36, § 95. Appellant's position is that Willie Mae Davis was a guest within the meaning of the guest statute above, and that he was not, therefore, liable to her for simple negligence. The error with which the appellant charges the trial court was its refusal to give two written charges; the first being the affirmative charge for the defendant without hypothesis; and the second, a charge that under the facts adduced at the trial the plaintiff was a "guest".
There is virtually no conflict in the evidence concerning the plaintiff's status in defendant's automobile at the time of the accident. The plaintiff, a negro woman, is a practical nurse and had previously nursed the defendant Sullivan and members of his family. At the time of the accident, the defendant's wife was a patient in a Montgomery hospital. On the date of the accident the defendant Sullivan's daughter contacted the plaintiff and told her that the defendant's wife, Mrs. Sullivan, was in the hospital and asked that she come to the hospital so that they might have a family conference relative to obtaining the plaintiff's services to care for Mrs. Sullivan after she was discharged from the hospital. The plaintiff replied that she had no way to get to the hospital or back to her home. The defendant's daughter told the plaintiff that she would pick her up at her home and take her to the hospital, and that her father, the defendant, would take her home after the conference. The plaintiff agreed to these arrangements and went to the hospital to see Mrs. Sullivan. At the hospital, the plaintiff agreed with the defendant, Mr. Sullivan, that when his wife was taken home from the hospital the next day, the plaintiff would serve her at her home as a practical nurse. After this agreement was reached the plaintiff left the hospital for her home with the defendant, Mr. Sullivan, operating the automobile. While the defendant was returning the plaintiff to her home, his automobile was engaged in a collision with the automobile of Boddie. This accident was the basis of the present action. Title 36, § 95, Code of Alabama 1940, is as follows:
Our statute, and most similar enactments in other jurisdictions, do not define the term "guest". The definition of the pivotal term "guest" has largely been left to judicial construction. The so-called "guest statute" was designed to provide relief for drivers of automobiles who had extended their hospitality to passengers, and were then subjected to suit, under the common law, which held the driver responsible to his guests for a breach of duty to exercise ordinary care. Courts have generally held in determining who are "guests" within the meaning of such statute that they would not extend the influence of the statute beyond the evils which the legislature intended to correct. Blair v. Greene, 247 Ala. 104, 22 So. 2d 834; Arkansas Valley Co-op Rural Electric Co. v. Elkins, 200 Ark. 883, 141 S.W.2d 538; Russell v. Parlee, 115 Conn. 687, 163 A. 404; Thuente v. Hart Motors, 234 Iowa 1294, 15 N.W.2d 622; Smith v. Clute, 277 N.Y. 407, 14 N.E.2d 455; Johnson v. Smither, Tex.Civ.App., 116 S.W.2d 812.
*436 In construing our guest statute this court has previously given consideration to the meaning of the terms "guest" and "transported without payment therefor". Blair v. Greene, supra; Wagnon v. Patterson, 260 Ala. 297, 70 So. 2d 244. It is urged by both parties to this appeal that these cases are not fully determinative of the question at bar.
In 2 Restatement of Torts, 1273, Section 490 defines a "guest" as one carried gratuitously and who may not, therefore, recover under the guest statute for simple negligence, and a "passenger" as one transported for hire or reward. Wagnon v. Patterson, supra; Annotation, 10 A.L.R.2d 1351, 1353. Most courts pay lip service to these definitions, but seem to find great difficulty in applying them to the varied factual situations which require adjudication. The commercial and social relationships that can exist between the driver of an automobile and his passenger are almost as numerous and varied as human activity itself. At one extreme we have the "hitchhiker" guest who clearly falls within the purview of the statute. At the other extreme we have the passenger who pays the driver to be transported to a particular place and who is unquestionably beyond the scope of the statute. Between these two extremes the dividing line may at times become illusory and shadowy. It is sometimes necessary to enter into a detailed examination of the present and former relations between driver and passenger; implied and expressed arrangements made between them as to the conduct of the particular trip; the purpose of the mission; the benefits accruing to the driver and passenger from the expedition; and any other factors that bring into proper focus the true status of the parties at the time of the accident which give rise to the legal action.
A majority of this court concurred in that portion of the dissenting opinion of Livingston, J. [present Chief Justice], in Blair v. Greene [247 Ala. 104, 22 So. 2d 837], supra, in which he quoted, with approval, extracts from the decisions of other jurisdictions:
Additional support of the above propositions may be found in Russell v. Parlee, supra; Peery v. Mershon, 149 Fla. 351, 5 So. 2d 694; Leonard v. Stone, 313 Ill. App. 149, 39 N.E.2d 388; Knutson v. Lurie, 217 Iowa 192, 251 N.W. 147; Bailey v. Neale, 63 Ohio App. 62, 25 N.E.2d 310; Hoover v. Harris, 177 Tenn. 467, 151 S.W.2d 152. In Wagnon v. Patterson, supra, is the following statement [260 Ala. 297, 70 So.2d 249]:
To the same effect are the following cases: Bree v. Lamb, 120 Conn. 1, 178 A. 919; Sigel v. Gordon, 117 Conn. 271, 167 A. 719, Leonard v. Stone, supra; Thuente v. Hart Motors, supra; Monison v. McCoy, 266 Mich. 693, 256 N.W. 49; Smith v. Clute, supra; Hale v. Hale, 219 N.C. 191, 13 S.E.2d 221; Duncan v. Hutchinson, 139 Ohio St. 185, 39 N.E.2d 140; Smith v. Pacific Truck Express, 164 Or. 318, 100 P.2d 474; O'Hagan v. Byron, 153 Pa.Super. 372, 33 A.2d 779; Scotvold v. Scotvold, 68 S.D. 53, 298 N.W. 266; Chumley v. Anderton, 20 Tenn.App. 621, 103 S.W.2d 331; Henry v. Henson, Tex.Civ.App., 174 S.W.2d 270; Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598, 24 P.2d 99. Corpus Juris Secundum states the proposition as follows:
In Blair v. Greene, supra, this court quoted the following statement from Humphreys v. San Francisco Area Council, etc., Cal.App., 129 P.2d 118, with approval:
The above statement, however, must be considered together with the general rule that a mere incidental benefit to the driver is not sufficient to take the rider out of the guest statute. The benefit conferred must in some degree have induced the driver to extend the offer to the rider. Further, courts have generally held that the benefit must be material and tangible and must flow from the transportation provided. Druzanich v. Criley, 19 Cal. 2d 439, 122 P.2d 53; Bree v. Lamb, supra; Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stitzle, 220 Ind. 180, 41 N.E.2d 133; Thuente v. Hart Motors, supra; Srajer v. Schwartzman, 164 Kan. 241, 188 P.2d 971; Brody v. Harris, 308 Mich. 234, 13 N.W.2d 273, 155 A.L.R. 573; Nyberg v. Kirby, 65 Nev. 42, 188 P.2d 1006, 193 P.2d 850; Hale v. Hale, supra; Voelkl v. Latin, 58 Ohio App. 245, 16 N.E.2d 519; Melcher v. Adams, 174 Or. 75, 146 P.2d 354; Schiltz v. Picton, 66 S.D. 301, 282 N.W. 519; Henry v. Henson, supra; Iron v. Sauve, 27 Wash. 2d 562, 179 P.2d 327.
In the instant case the relationship between the defendant driver and the plaintiff passenger was clearly that of prospective employer and employee. There was no social relationship between the parties. It was the legal duty, as well as his pleasure, for the defendant to provide proper nursing care for his wife. The trip which resulted in the plaintiff's injury was undertaken by the defendant and his daughter to facilitate negotiations leading to the employment of the plaintiff as a practical nurse for defendant's sick wife. Under the circumstances of this particular case we cannot hold as a matter of law that no tangible benefit flowed to the defendant-appellant from the automobile trip, or that such benefit did not induce the defendant to transport plaintiff. Indeed, the evidence tends to indicate the contrary. It follows that the requested charges which are necessarily based on the converse premise were properly refused.
The judgment of the circuit court is due to be, and is hereby, affirmed.
Affirmed.
LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and GOODWYN, JJ., concur.