Court Opinion

ID: 9530504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:00:25.478727+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:08.187050
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Hall
specially concurring:
I concur with the majority in affirming the judgment of the trial court; however, I do not concur in all of the language contained in the majority opinion.
I am firmly of the opinion that the so-called Colorado guest statute is unconstitutional when invoked against one seeking to recover for injuries incurred while riding in an automobile being driven by the host in a negligent manner. My views on the question are amply and ably expressed in the dissenting opinion of Justice Frantz, in the case of Vogts v. Guerrette, 351 P. (2d) 851, decided May 2, 1960.
I am equally firm in the opinion that this same statute *43is constitutional as applied in actions seeking recovery for unlawful death. In such actions the statute does not, nor does it purport to, deprive anyone of a right, inherent, constitutional or otherwise. Rather, it is part and parcel of the wrongful death statute, which grants, rather than takes away, rights. The legislature having granted a right may qualify it in any manner, such as limiting the amount of recovery, specifying the character, kind and quantum of proof required to recover. Such being the nature of the statute and its function, its application in death cases does not offend against any right of the person seeking recovery in conformity with the statutory grant.
The record disclosing no evidence that Welle’s negligent conduct could be characterized as wilful, wanton or intentional, Mrs. Taylor has not met the statutory requirements for a recovery and the trial court properly directed a verdict in favor of Welle.