Court Opinion

ID: 9534373
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:39:00.660549+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:30:24.756987
License: Public Domain

Gillespie, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority. The majority opinion correctly holds that Mrs. W. E. Stogner, Jr., to whom the non-owned automobile was furnished for regular use, was not a “resident” of the Arinder household. The majority seems to place the decision solely on the ground that Mrs. Stogner was temporarily visiting or sojourning in the Arinder household, and, *823therefore, was not a resident of the Arinder household. I am of the opinion that this is correct, hut I think the opinion should stop there. It needlessly discusses the term “household”. In my opinion, it is not necessary to determine the meaning of “household” in order to determine whether Mrs. Stogner was a resident or a visitor in the home of her father and mother. The discussion of the term “household” serves no purpose, and I am unable to agree with that part of the opinion.
Patterson, J., joins in this opinion.