Court Opinion

ID: 9767392
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:18:32.891293+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:30.923577
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice (dissenting). In my opinion, the present decision by the court greatly weakens the effectiveness of the Guest Statutes. Appellee, in arguing for affirmance of this case, makes a statement in her brief with which I entirely agree. After reviewing a number of cases, decided under the Guest Statutes, she states, “This review also indicates a trend of the Court toward allowing guest cases to go to the jury under more liberal requirements of proof than in the earlier cases decided immediately after passage of the Guest Statutes.” Certainly, I cannot believe that the verdict for appellee would have been upheld under earlier decisions. In Splawn v. Wright, 198 Ark. 197, 128 S. W. 2d 248 (decided in May 1939) the guest was a young lady, riding with another young lady and a young man. The driver was operating the automobile at a speed of approximately 45 miles per hour on a gravel road, and on a foggy, rainy night. In making a curve, the car began to slide and the guests remonstrated with the driver, telling him that he was driving too fast. Later, when the driver reached down to adjust the heater, he lost control of the car, and the guest was injured. The case was allowed to go to the jury, but this court reversed on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence of wilful and wanton negligence to make a jury question. In Edwards v. Jeffers, 204 Ark. 400, 162, S. W. 2d 472, decided in June, 1942, the driver and guest were ladies who were close friends. According to testimony, the driver was traveling along a gravel road which had several sharp turns; the car failed to complete one turn, and the driver lost control, the automobile turning over in a ditch. The guest testified that the car was moving at a speed of 70 to 80 miles per hour, and further that she warned the driver several times by saying, “Irene, you are driving too fast over this road,” and called to the driver’s attention the fact that the gravel was loose and there were curves on the road. According to the witness, the operator of the car never did slow down. Again, the trial court allowed the ease to go to the jury, but again this court reversed and dismissed on the basis that the testimony fell short of that degree of wilful and wanton misconduct that would warrant a recovery under the statute. In Cooper v. Calico, 214 Ark. 853, 218 S. W. 2d 723, a driver, who had been drinking intoxicants, endeavored to move his car from one place on a parking lot to another. In doing so, he allowed the back end of the automobile to protrude over the paving of Highway No. 71, north of Fayetteville. Admittedly, he did not look up or down the highway before attempting to move, because he had not intended to back onto the highway. An approaching vehicle hit the car and injured a guest, a young high school girl. The young lady recovered judgment in the trial court, but this court reversed the judgment, stating: “No one could successfully deny that his conduct was careless. Certainty he was negligent in not stopping and looking in each direction before placing his Chevrolet and his passengers in a position of peril. But even gross negligence, under the Guest Statutes, is not enough. There must be a wilfulness, a wantonness, an indifferent abandonment in respect of consequences, applicable alike to self and guests.” Numerous other cases could be cited to the same effect. I certainly agree that Mrs. Spence was guilty of ordinary negligence, but I cannot agree that her negligence reached the category of wilful and wanton misconduct. It is obvious from the proof that a tire on the Spence automobile was losing air, which occasioned the “humming” sound that was heard. The majority state: “ * * * it is not illogical to conclude that appellant was negligent when she failed to slow down after the car started humming; she was grossly negligent when she failed to slow down after the car began swerving; and she was wilfully or wantonly negligent in failing to slow down after the grinding noise started, the car swerved more violently, she was twice warned to slow down, and she still continued to drive at the same speed of about 50 miles per hour.” From the evidence, all of the above took place in less than a minute, and, as far as wilful and wanton negligence is concerned, (according to the majority, “when the grinding noise started”) this only lasted for a very few seconds! On a clear day and straight highway, Mrs. Spence was driving at a moderate and legal rate of speed. Because of her inability to recognize that the tire was going flat, the accident occurred. I reiterate my belief that she was guilty of ordinary negligence, but I do not consider that these circumstances establish wilful and wanton negligence. I, therefore, respectfully dissent. I am authorized to state that Justice George Bose Smith joins in this dissent.