Court Opinion

ID: 9625640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:46:32.434179+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:12.467754
License: Public Domain

DENECKE, J.,
specially concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. I specially concur to write my views on a "rule” of statutory construction stated by the majority.
The majority states: "It is a cardinal rule of statutory construction that statutes in derogation of a common law right must be strictly construed.” This court and most other courts have stated that rule many times and we have stated that it is applicable in interpreting the guest statute. I am of the opinion this "rule” is of little or no assistance in interpreting statutes and is ostensibly relied upon by courts after they have already determined by some other process what the interpretation shall be.
"* * * In a sense every statute, with the exception of declaratory statutes, alters the common law — either directly or by entering fields previously free of common law regulation. Thus, all statutes potentially may be *314strictly construed because they are in derogation of the common law. But to presume that the legislature did not intend to change the common law usually is directly contrary to the fact and often is in contradiction to specific legislative rejection of the rule. * * Horack, The Disintegration of Statutory Construction, 24 Ind L J 335, 345 (1949).
Courts have also taken this view, including courts interpreting guest statutes:
"At the outset, we do not consider ourselves at liberty to apply any rule of 'strict construction’ to this or any other statute, simply because it happens to be in derogation of common law. Legislatures intend by such statutes to replace or change rules of the common law. Too much judicial indulgence in 'strict construction’ of statutes has heretofore disguised 'extraconstitutional obstacles to, or hindrances of, legislative purpose.’ State ex rel. City of St. Paul v. M. St. P. & S. S. M. Ry. Co. 190 Minn. 162, 165, 251 N. W. 275, 277. However radical the change, we do not permit ourselves, because it is an innovation, so to limit a statute by construction as to defeat or even hinder its purpose. Our effort is rather to give any statute 'a fair construction, with the purpose of its enactment in view, not narrowed or restricted because it is a substitute for the discarded common law.’ Wells-Dickey Trust Co. v. C. B. & Q. R. Co. 159 Minn. 417, 422, 199 N. W. 101, 103. It is with that rule, rather than any notion either of duty or right to construe strictly, as a guide, that we attempt interpretation of the Florida statute.” Teders v. Rothermel, 205 Minn 470, 472, 286 NW 353 (1939).