Court Opinion

ID: 9619515
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:29:05.627449+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:41.782152
License: Public Domain

Hall, Justice,
concurring specially in Division 2.
This case perfectly illustrates the absurdity of the guest-passenger rule. See my special concurrence in Grimes v. Roe, 242 Ga. 669, 670-671 (251 SE2d 266) (1978) and my dissent in Bickford v. Nolen, 240 Ga. 255, 258-261 (240 SE2d 24) (1977). Under the majority opinion, where two parties alternate in driving an automobile on a trip, the duty of care owed to the non-driver is slight care when the owner is driving and ordinary care when the non-owner is driving.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Justice Undercofler joins in this special concurrence.