Court Opinion

ID: 9631913
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:55:27.638134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:04.043572
License: Public Domain

*325KEETON, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
In my opinion the evidence was insufficient to entitle appellant Jo recover on any theory. Appellant requested and accepted a ride in respondent’s car. The guest statute, Sec. 49-1401, I.C., controls the situation. No benefit accrued to the automobile driver, nor at the time of the accident and injury complained of were appellant and respondent performing any service for a common employer. Appellant’s own testimony clearly establishes that he could have returned from the party to the base in an army truck. The reason he sought the ride with respondent was to stop in town and do a little shopping which he could not have done had he ridden in an army truck. He sought the ride with respondent for his own pleasure and convenience, without consideration, and was accepted as a passenger purely as a matter of hospitality and companionship.
The facts presented do not establish any exception to the rule that a guest while riding-with another in an automobile cannot recover for injuries sustained unless the -accident which caused the injury shall-have been '-intentional on the part of-the owner of operator, or caused by the driver’s intoxication or his reckless disregard-of the rights of others.
, -Thé -judgment of nonsuit should be affirmed.