Opinion ID: 1293616
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the owner-passenger

Text: The evidence reveals that the owner-passenger was drinking beer at a local lounge about 25 minutes before the collision. His companion described his condition as: He was under some influence of alcohol, but he was not  acting drunk as you would say. Tests made to determine the amount of alcohol in his blood indicated .113%. [2] There is no evidence relative to his actions until later in the morning when he was found dead at the bridge site, in his automobile which had been operated by the other deceased person. Bridgebuilders presents nothing in the record which would warrant the inference that the owner-passenger was or was not negligent or contributorily negligent. The argument of counsel for Bridgebuilders that its conduct, at most, set the stage and made it possible for the collision to occur has substantial appeal. However, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the owner-passenger, I think that a jury issue was created as to his claim. Bridgebuilders has failed to carry the burden of proving that the owner-passenger was contributorily negligent and that such negligence was a proximate cause of the death. As to the verdict in favor of the driver, I conclude that there was evidence for consideration by the jury that Bridgebuilders was negligent and that such negligence was a contributing proximate cause of the death, but even viewing the evidence most favorably to the driver I also conclude that he was not only negligent, but was wanton and reckless and his culpability, as a matter of law, exceeded that of Bridgebuilders. This being true, I would hold that the trial judge should have ended this claim upon motion at one of the stages of the trial. In making this determination, I have honored the comparative negligence statute but applied the rule set forth in Stockman v. Marlowe, supra . Under the view I take of both claims, the same result is reached with or without application of the comparative negligence statute. The verdict in favor of the owner-passenger should be affirmed. The verdict in favor of the driver should be reversed. GREGORY, J., concurs.