Court Opinion

ID: 9544075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:51:47.935518+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:55.573363
License: Public Domain

Batjer, J.,
concurring in the result:
In Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117 (1929), the United States Supreme Court rejected the equal protection argument and upheld the constitutionality of an automobile guest statute. Article 1, section 2, of the Nevada Constitution declares:
“ . . . [T]he Paramount Allegiance of every citizen is due to the Federal Government in the exercise of all its Constitutional powers as the same have been or may be defined by the Supreme Court of the United States . .
*515I believe that the Silver case is to be followed and that NRS 41.180, as considered by the majority, is not in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore, I do not believe that automobile guests within NRS 41.180 are such an unreasonable or arbitrary class as to be in violation of article 4, section 21, of the Nevada Constitution. The question of classification is for the Legislature, and it is the duty of the courts to sustain it if there is any reasonable basis for the classification. Norman v. City of Las Vegas, 64 Nev. 38, 177 P.2d 442 (1947); Mengelkamp v. List, 88 Nev. 542, 501 P.2d 1032 (1972).
Nevertheless, I agree with the result reached in this case by the majority, because of the enactment by the Legislature of the Nevada Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, chapter 698 of NRS. That Act requires automobile owners to purchase policies of insurance or other security which would provide medical, surgical, funeral, and disability benefits for every person, unless specifically excluded, who suffers a loss from injury arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, without regard to immunity from liability, if the accident occurs in this State. NRS 698.230.1 Automobile guests are included, as well as others. By requiring insurance to protect a guest to the extent of “basic reparation benefits . . . without regard to immunity”,2 the Legislature has in effect created a new class of guests within the exclusion of NRS 41.180, i.e., all those whose injuries exceed “basic reparation benefits”. Excluding from recovery those automobile guests who receive severe injury beyond “basic reparation benefits” amounts to an unreasonable classification within a class and is indeed in violation of article 4, section 21, of the Nevada Constitution. Reed v. Reed, supra; Doubles Ltd. v. Gragson, supra; Boyne v. State ex rel. Dickerson, supra.

NRS 698.230:
“If the accident causing injury occurs in this state, every person suffering loss from injury arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle has a right to basic reparation benefits unless such benefits are excluded under the provisions of NRS 698.340.”

NRS 698.250, in relevant part:
“2. Basic reparation obligors . . . shall pay basic reparation benefits .. . for loss from injury arising out of maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. This obligation exists without regard to immunity from liability or suit which might otherwise be applicable." (Emphasis added.)