Opinion ID: 1837726
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: justifications offered to support guest law

Text: The first justification given for the statute is a fear of collusion between hosts and guests. Such a justification is faulty in many respects. In the first place, the statute arbitrarily takes away a remedy from all guests, even including those who plainly are not in collusion with hosts, in order to reach those who may be. It is therefore suspect as being constitutionally overbroad. Christman v. Emineth, supra ; Melland v. Johanneson, supra . Second, such a justification has already been rejected in this State. In Degenstein v. Ehrman, 145 N.W.2d 493, 502 (N.D.1966), we pointed out that a guest statute is no final answer to collusion. It is still possible for the dishonest to fabricate evidence to support the higher degree of fault required by the statute. 2 Harper & James Torts 961, 1956. As one example, it would be simple for a colluding host and guest to assert that payment had been made for the transportation, or that the driver was intoxicated, thereby withdrawing the case from the guest statute. In all other cases, we rely upon the standard remedies of perjury, the efficacy of cross-examination, the availability of pretrial discovery, and the good sense of juries to detect false testimony if it should occur. We do not withdraw the remedy from all injured persons in order to avoid a rare recovery based upon false testimony. Third, we do not forbid other types of action where collusion might be expected to occur even more frequently than in guest statutes. For example, we permit actions by children against their parents, as in Nuelle v. Wells, 154 N.W.2d 364 (N.D. 1967), and by wife against husband, as in Fitzmaurice v. Fitzmaurice, 62 N.D. 191, 242 N.W. 526 (1932). Surely intrafamily suits present more of a danger of fabrication of evidence than most automobile tort cases, yet we routinely enforce ordinary negligence rules in suits between members of a family. In Glona v. American Guarantee Co., 391 U.S. 73, 88 S.Ct. 1515, 20 L.Ed. 441 (1968), Louisiana statutes and decisions prohibiting recovery for wrongful death by the mother of a deceased illegitimate child were held unconstitutional in spite of a possible temptation to some to assert motherhood fraudulently. That fear was dismissed as one which concerns burden of proof. We agree. We hold that the arbitrary distinction between paying and nonpaying guests contained in Chapter 39-15 is not justified by an illusory fear of collusion or perjury. The second justification for the statute, that it is somehow ungrateful for the guest to sue his benefactor, as if he were a dog biting the hand that fed it, is an oddity in the law. It is contrary to the express policy of our negligence statutes, expressed in Section 9-10-06, N.D.C.C.: Everyone is responsible not only for the result of his willful acts but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person.. . . The notion that it is improper to allow a guest to sue for ordinary negligence is not applied to any other host-guest relationship, such as that arising from entertaining in a private home. See Keeler v. Keeler, 337 F.Supp. 824 (D.C.N.D.1972), construing North Dakota law. We note in passing that Section 9-10-06, N.D.C.C., quoted supra, was amended and the quoted portion was re-enacted in 1973, and that the Legislature thereby gave evidence of its continuing indorsement of the doctrine of general liability in tort for ordinary negligence. The actual operation of the guest law in practice is expressed in Prosser, Torts, 4th Edition, at page 187: The typical guest act case is that of the driver who offers his friend a lift to the office or invites him out to dinner, negligently drives him into a collision, and fractures his skullafter which the driver and his insurance company take refuge in the statute, step out of the picture, and leave the guest to bear his own loss. If this is good social policy, it at least appears under a novel front. In other situations where a similar doctrine might be expected, if public policy supports the guest law, we have no such restrictions on the right to sue. For example, we do not permit charitable hospitals or other charities to claim immunity from suit. Rickbeil v. Grafton Deaconess Hospital, 74 N.D. 525, 23 N.W.2d 247, 166 A. L.R. 99 (1946); Granger v. Deaconess Hospital of Grand Forks, 138 N.W.2d 443 (N.D.1965). We find no public policy, constitutionally permissible, which can justify the harsh and arbitrary deviation from the general rule of liability for ordinary negligence merely because of the existence of hospitality in the use of an automobile.