Court Opinion

ID: 9731655
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:53:46.055215+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:10:03.183755
License: Public Domain

*343Knutson, Justice
(dissenting).
I am unable to agree with this decision for a number of reasons. In the first place, the case is now being disposed of on a theory that was never mentioned at the trial and never considered by the trial court. The only claim made by plaintiff at the time of the trial, and the one upon which the trial court based its decision that plaintiff was a passenger for hire, is found in plaintiffs motion at the close of the case, where plaintiff’s counsel said:
“* * * the plaintiffs claim the sharing of expenses takes them out of the Guest Statute, * * *. It appears as a matter of law the Court should rule that the Burts are out from under the Guest Statute because they are passengers for hire, * *
After listening to arguments of counsel, the court said: “I will rule that they are passengers for hire.”
In the next place, the decision is based on an inference that to me seems wholly inconsistent with the evidence and directly contrary to the understanding and intention of the parties. The following direct testimony of Mr. Burt is the only evidence in the case furnishing any help in determining what the parties did:
“Q. And as a result of you paying for that trip, did you and Mr. Richardson more or less arrive at the conclusion that your piaying for the trip from Florida to Havana constituted sufficient expenditures so you didn’t need an accounting on the gas, oil and so forth?
“A. Well, I believe that is so, because after the accident — Mr. Richardson kept a record of the expenses on the trip — and after the accident everything was upset, and I asked Mr. Richardson to figure out what I owed him, and he said, T don’t think you owe me anything after the trip to Cuba.’ He said, T think that will amply cover your share of the expenses.’
“Q. In other words, the trip to Cuba offset what you owed him for gas and oil?
“A. Yes.” (Italics supplied.)
It seems to me that the only conclusion that can be drawn from this testimony is that one payment offset the other and that it was not necessary to go into a more detailed account. If plaintiff had *344claimed that they had overpaid defendant and that such overpayment would take them out of the guest statute, the evidence might well have been different. No such claim was made. From the testimony it is difficult to see how any conclusion can be drawn other than that all parties believed that defendant had been paid for plaintiff’s share of the expenses and nothing more. Plaintiff’s entire case rested upon the proposition that payment of the expenses under the circumstances of this case took them out of the Iowa Guest Statute. The above opinion holds against them on that proposition but finds another reason, not advanced by the parties, for affirming the decision.
Even if it could be said that the expenses of the Cuban trip did slightly exceed the expense of the automobile trip, there is still another reason why it could not change plaintiff’s status from a guest to a passenger for hire. The Cuban trip had nothing to do with the automobile trip. It was entirely separate from it. The parties traveled by air from Florida to Cuba. It was not within the contemplation of the parties when the trip started. As I understand the Iowa cases, a benefit coming to the owner of a car, in order to take a passenger out of the guest statute, must be a benefit arising from the passenger’s presence in the automobile, not a benefit arising out of some other transaction. If defendant received any benefit here in excess of plaintiff’s share of the expenses, it was by virtue of payment of expenses on a side trip which had nothing to do with the automobile trip. If there was any overpayment, none of the parties have ever claimed that such extra amount was paid to defendant for the privilege of riding in the automobile. For these reasons, it appears to me that the decision of the trial court is contrary to the Iowa decisions and for that reason I respectfully dissent.