Court Opinion

ID: 9558580
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 17:12:59.815095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:09:24.927590
License: Public Domain

SCHAUER, J.
I dissent. In my view the evidence does not establish as a matter of law that plaintiffs compensated defendants for the trip in question. The majority opinion does not expressly state that it is departing from the general precepts, announced in McCann v. Hoffman (1937), 9 Cal.2d 279, 286 [70 P.2d 909], that “where a special tangible benefit to the defendant was the motivating influence for furnishing the transportation, compensation may be said to have been given. But it is not given where the main purpose of the trip is the joint pleasure of the participants. The payment of a portion of the expense, as for gasoline and oil consumed on the trip, is merely incidental and does not constitute the moving influence for the transportation. The provocation for the offer of transportation remains the joint social one of reciprocal hospitality or pleasure.”
What are the salient differences between the facts of the McCann case, where it was held that plaintiffs as a matter of law did not give compensation, and the facts of this case, where it is held that plaintiffs as a matter of law did give compensation? There, as here, two couples, friends, went on a pleasure trip in defendants’ automobile and shared the expenses of gasoline and oil, lodging and meals. There the trip was to be for a few days; here the trip “might last two or three weeks” (majority opinion, p. 747). There the two defendants and the two plaintiffs tacitly understood that they *748would share expenses equally. Here the two plaintiffs and the two defendants expressly agreed that each would pay one half the expenses, although four Frenches and only two Whit-mores were making the trip. It was at Mr. Whitmore’s insistence that the expenses were not divided per capita; this was because he had poor eyesight and therefore desired, and it was agreed, that Mr. French take the Frenches’ car and do all the driving.
There is nothing in the length of the trip or the express agreement as to division of expenses and driving of the Frenches’ car by Mr. French which establishes as a matter law that the plaintiffs’ payment of more than their per capita share of the expenses was an influence which motivated the defendants in taking the plaintiffs on the vacation trip. The Restatement of Torts (§ 490, comment a; see scope note to chap. 19, p. 1292) states that “if there is a prior arrangement that there shall be a substantial sharing of the expenses, the host and guest relation does not exist.” This has not been the law of California. (Rogers v. Vreeland (1936), 16 Cal.App. 2d 364, 367 [60 P.2d 585] [express agreement to share expenses on a pleasure trip as a matter of law was not compensation]; Stephen v. Spaulding (1939), 32 Cal.App.2d 326, 328 [89 P.2d 683] [as in McCann v. Hoffman (1937), supra, 9 Cal.2d 279, there was a tacit, mutual understanding that plaintiff and defendant would share expenses of a pleasure trip; held, as a matter of law defendant was a guest, not a passenger]; Fiske v. Wilkie (1945), 67 Cal.App.2d 440, 446 [154 P.2d 725] [Garden Club trip; no express arrangement as to the particular trip but “it is understood with the Garden Club when we take these trips” that the riders pay for all the gasoline; as a matter of law the riders are guests]; Whitechat v. Guyett (1942), 19 Cal.2d 428, 435 [122 P.2d 47] [defendant testified that he agreed to make a trip from Fresno to Stockton before any mention of compensation was made and solely for friendship; but he also testified that $5.00 he received from his riders was “for driving up there”; held, question of fact as to whether the $5.00 was compensation or mere sharing of expenses].)
It is my opinion that the evidence here, as in the Whitechat case, supra, presented a question for the trier of fact as to whether the defendants took the plaintiffs on the vacation trip primarily because the parties were friends who wished to enjoy the trip together or primarily because the plaintiffs agreed to pay more than their per capita share of the travel*749ing expenses. Therefore, the failure to instruct as to defendants’ liability under the guest law (Veh. Code, § 403) was prejudicial error.
Edmonds, J., concurred.