Opinion ID: 2087563
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review and burden

Text: In approaching a consideration of the constitutionality of a statute, we must at all times exercise self restraint. Otherwise, under the guise of limiting the Legislature to its constitutional bounds, we are likely to exceed our own. That we have the last word only renders such restraint the more compelling. We, therefore, remind ourselves that in our role as guardian of the constitution, we are nevertheless a court and not a supreme legislature. We have no right to substitute our convictions as to the desirability or wisdom of legislation for those of our elected representatives. We are under a constitutional mandate to limit the General Assembly to its lawful territory of prohibiting legislation which, although enacted under the claim of a valid exercise of the police power, is unreasonable and oppressive. Nevertheless, we recognize that the Legislature is vested with a wide latitude of discretion in determining public policy. Therefore, every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality, and such presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary. In the deliberative process, the burden is upon the challenger to overcome such presumption, and all doubts are resolved against his charge. The plaintiff, Leonherdt (Green), would avoid the application of the aforementioned standards and shift the burden that we believe is hers by charging that the right to bring an action for common law negligence is fundamental and that the burden is therefore upon the proponent of constitutionality to show a compelling state interest justifying the legislative classification. We reject this proposition. Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have upheld the right of states to abolish or modify the common law. Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Op. Marketing Association, (1928) 276 U.S. 71, 48 S.Ct. 291, 72 L.Ed. 473; Brooks v. Robinson, (1972) 259 Ind. 16, 284 N.E.2d 794; Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Shane Co., (1957) 237 Ind. 188, 143 N.E.2d 415. It is only required that the manner and effect of abolition not violate any relevant constitutional constraints. Chaffin v. Nicosia, (1974) 261 Ind. 698, 701, 310 N.E.2d 867, 869. Fundamental rights are those which have their origin in the express terms of the constitution or which are necessarily to be implied from those terms. San Antonio Indep. School Dist. v. Rodriquez, (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16. The right asserted by the plaintiff is not such a right. Within the context of these cases, at least, we see no differences in the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Both are designed to prevent the distribution of extraordinary benefits or burdens to any group. However, the power to establish legislative classifications of persons has not been categorically denied but only severely limited. Rather, our courts have required only that such classifications meet certain tests. If neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification is involved, the standard of review is that the classification not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Dandridge v. Williams, (1970) 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491, and that a fair and substantial relationship exist between the classification and the purpose of the legislation creating it. Johnson v. Robinson, (1974) 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389; Reed v. Reed, (1971) 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225; Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, (1920) 253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed. 989. See also Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term, Forward: In Search of Evolving Doctrines of a Changing Court: A Model For a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1972). Our guest statute precludes a guest passenger from recovering damages for personal injuries sustained merely by the negligence of the owner or operator. Being inoperative as to passengers who were not guests, the statute creates two classifications of passengers  guests and non-guests, who are treated vastly differently under circumstances that are otherwise identical. The inequity is patent. The issues are whether or not the classification is reasonable and bears a fair and substantial relation to the legitimate purpose of the statute. The presumptions are that it is and does, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to show the contrary.