Court Opinion

ID: 9647231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:27:13.554857+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:46.633231
License: Public Domain

Condon, J.,
dissenting. If public laws 1952, chapter 3002, is to be given the broad scope approved by the majority, the legislature has enacted a law that goes far beyond regulating the operation of motor vehicles on the highways. I am of the opinion that the legislature did not intend to go that far. The language in article III, sec. 4, of the chapter which is mainly relied upon by the majority, namely, “The operator of every motor vehicle which is in any manner involved in an accident within this state,” does not, in my opinion, necessarily include accidents on private property as well as on the highways, merely because of the words “within this state.” I think those words are intended simply to exclude any implication that the statute was to apply to operators who became involved in accidents outside the state. As the majority well say in their opinion: “The legislature, in enacting this act, was dealing with the problem of the use of the highways of this state by the operators or owners of motor vehicles who, in the event of an accident, were unable or unwilling to respond financially to claims for damages arising therefrom.” (italics mine)
*311Aram K. Berberian, for complainant.
William E. Powers, Atty. Gen., Archie Smith, Ass’t Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Because I cannot agree that the legislature intended to go any further, I am constrained to dissent.