Court Opinion

ID: 9687384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:27:05.601371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:26.879222
License: Public Domain

Snell, J.
I respectfully dissent. I agree with the principles of law appearing in the majority opinion. I agree that a rider’s status is not changed from that of a guest by voluntarily performing some act of benefit to the driver during the trip. Motivation for the trip should be determined as of the time the trip was commenced. I agree that in the interest of clarity an instruction such as required by the last paragraph in Division *30IV should be recommended. I do not; agree that the court’s instructions were so lacking in .this particular as to mislead the jury. . .
In Division HI the majority concludes, “that there is substantial evidence from which a jury might reasonably draw an inference that defendant’s motivation in furnishing plaintiff transportation was the expectation of a benefit to defendant.” I agree with that conclusion. The issue was submitted to the jury in exactly that form. The first matter the jury was required to find was: “1. That the plaintiff’s decedent was not riding in .said vehicle as a guest of the defendant’s decedent but was a passenger therein under such circumstances as to render or furnish a tangible benefit to the defendant’s decedent, Bay G. Bonfeldt.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Instruction No. 4 as given includes these words: “ * * * the burden of proof is- upon the plaintiff in this case to show that her decedent, Orville Irlbeck, was a passenger in the defendant’s decedent’s motor truck for the definite benefit or advantage to said Bay C. Bonfeldt. * # * if you find that the plaintiff’s decedent’s presence as a passenger therein was for the definite or tangible benefit or .advantage of the defendant’s decedent, then you should consider the question of the defendant’s decedent’s negligence.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The only issue as to the rider’s status submitted to the jury was whether he was there for the benefit of defendant’s decedent. Under the issue as submitted, the evidence and the instructions read as a whole, the only basis upon, which the jury could have based a verdict was a conclusion that the majority in Division III says has support. I do not think the jury was misled. I would affirm.
Becker, J., joins in this dissent.