Opinion ID: 2218676
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is There a Duty?

Text: Whether a defendant owes a duty of care to a plaintiff is a question of law for the court to decide. See, e.g., Webb v. Jarvis (1991), Ind., 575 N.E.2d 992, 995 (Whether the law recognizes any obligation on the part of a particular defendant to conform his conduct to a certain standard for the benefit of the plaintiff is a question of law.); Gariup Const. Co. v. Foster (1988), Ind., 519 N.E.2d 1224, 1228 (It is the exclusive province of the court to determine whether the relation existing between the parties gives rise to a duty to exercise care.). The estate argues that an automobile driver owes his passenger a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances, and that whether Ledbetter breached his duty by continuing to drive while Miller was sitting in a dangerous position in the truck is a question of fact for the jury to decide. Ledbetter maintains the driver of a motor vehicle who commits no act of malfeasance owes no duty to protect or rescue a competent adult passenger who has placed himself in a position of peril. Like the Court of Appeals, we conclude that Ledbetter owed a duty of reasonable care to his passengers. In Indiana courts, the common law view has been that the operator of an automobile owes to a passenger the duty of exercising reasonable care in its operation. Munson v. Rupker (1925), 96 Ind. App. 15, 148 N.E. 169. This rule has generally prevailed in the rest of the country. See 5 Blashfield Automobile Law and Practice § 211.1 (Frederick D. Lewis ed., 3 ed., 1966). In 1929, the Indiana General Assembly altered our common law rule by enacting a guest statute which prohibited motor vehicle guests from recovering for injuries from the owner or operator unless the owner acted intentionally or with reckless disregard of the rights of others. [1] In 1984, the legislature amended the guest statute. It now prohibits recovery by immediate family or hitchhikers, absent wanton or willful misconduct. [2] The statute is silent as to other guests. Thus we think that the common law rule recited in Munson, the rule which prevailed until 1929, is applicable to guests once again. [3]