Court Opinion

ID: 9714509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:39:31.369224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:26.746939
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Arterburn, J.
I concur in what is said by the majority in this case about the constitutionality of the guest passenger statute. It occurs to me, however, that this whole question is easily resolved by analogy to the law of bailments.
Under the common law (not by statute) a paid bailee or one for hire was required to exercise a higher degree of care than a gratuitous bailee who assumed possession of property out of generosity or kindness. “It is oi’dinarily stated that where a bailment is for the sole benefit of the bailor, the bailee is liable only for gross negligence or bad faith, willful act, or fraud.” 8 C.J.S. Bailments § 28 at 418-419 (1962) ; see also 8 Am. Jur. 2d Bailments § 209 (1963).
*227In other words, the common law imposed upon a warehouseman or carrier of freight for pay is a higher standard of care than that imposed upon one restoring property for no payment for a friend or neighbor. The legislature has the right to enact the same principle with reference to gratuitous operators of automobiles with guests and those who are paid for the transportation of passengers. If at common law the courts saw fit to impose different degrees of negligence and care with reference to gratuitous acts as compared with those for pay, then certainly the legislature constitutionally may do so.
Note. — Eeported at 341 N.E.2d 763.