Court Opinion

ID: 9695406
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 18:18:54.836975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:12.072904
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
The evidence shows that defendant Pieper took his children and the 12-year-old plaintiff on a 3-week vacation and camping trip to the Fremont Lakes. The accident which caused injury to the plaintiff occurred during the return trip. The sole issue is whether or not plaintiff was a guest or a passenger for hire.
Pieper was caring for the plaintiff, as shown by the majority opinion, for an agreed compensation of $15 per week in accordance with an understanding with the boy’s father. It is my contention that the vacation and camping trip was a gratuitous gesture on the part of Pieper, completely outside of the scope of his agreement to care for the boy. Pieper was to receive his $15 per week whether he took the boy on the outing or left him at home with his wife. The fact that Pieper called plaintiff’s father for permission to take the boy on the outing is indicative that the trip was gratuitous and not a contractual obligation. He was a guest on the trip the same as Pieper’s own children. The holding of the majority that the agreement to pay Pieper $15 per week for the care of the boy was a payment for transportation on this unusual vacation trip is contrary to a long line of holdings of this court. The rule.in this state is: “A benefit to the owner or operator of a motor vehicle sufficient to remove an occupant riding in it from the provisions of the guest statute must be >a tangible and substantial one and a motivating influence for his furnishing the transportation.” Born v. Estate of Matzner, 159 Neb. 169, 65 N. W. *8252d 593. See, also, Carter v. Chicago, B. & Q. R.R. Co., 170 Neb. 438, 103 N. W. 2d 152.
I submit that the vacation trip was not pursuant to any contractual obligation, and that the payment of $15 per week was not, nor intended to be, compensation for transportation on this vacation trip. The benefit to Pieper was not a tangible nor substantial one, nor was it a motivating factor in making the trip. The majority holding that the cost of transportation of this 12-year-old plaintiff was a motivating factor in making the trip is not sustained by evidence or inference. Such finding is based on a strained consideration of the facts and an impracticable refinement of the definition of a passenger for hire that leads to an unjustified conclusion. The majority opinion is inconsistent with the previous holdings of this court and amounts to an unwarranted extension of the definition of a passenger for hire.
The trial court correctly determined that plaintiff was a guest in the automobile of Pieper at the time of the accident, and I would affirm the judgment based on such determination.
Brower, J., concurs in this dissent.