Court Opinion

ID: 9561232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:05:38.319666+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:41.650320
License: Public Domain

Lockett, J.,
concurring: I agree with the results reached by the majority of the court. I cannot agree that we should continue to overturn the verdicts of juries that have weighed the evidence after having been properly instructed, because the majority of this court seeks to escape the harsh results of imputed negligence.
The court has continually criticized the joint venture doctrine of imputing the negligence of the driver of an automobile to the passenger. The majority states the four basic elements necessary to establish a joint venture so as to impose vicarious liability:
(1) An agreement;
(2) a common purpose;
(3) a community of interest; and
(4) an equal right to a voice, accompanied by an equal right of control over the automobile.
To avoid the confines of the doctrine, the majority now re*29quires that there must be an understanding or an agreement in advance between the driver and the passenger that the passenger has the right to tell the driver how to drive the automobile. The majority deletes the requirement that the right to control the automobile must be equal between the passenger and the driver.
Rather than continue to recognize the doctrine of imputed negligence in automobile cases, we should reject its application. When our legislature adopted comparative negligence, it provided the proper method to determine the percentage of fault of the driver of an automobile and the passenger. It is time that we recognize the wisdom of the legislature.
McFarland, J., dissenting.