Court Opinion

ID: 9550869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:43:58.041129+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:35.616131
License: Public Domain

Arn, J.
(dissenting): I cannot agree with the statement contained in the second paragraph of the syllabus and the corresponding portion of the majority opinion. I realize this court has gone a long way in consistently holding as a matter of law that a given state of facts does not constitute wantonness as that term has been applied to the guest statute (G. S. 1935, 8-122b); and I will concede that here we have a rather close question in applying the rule as to what constitutes wantonness. Perhaps plaintiff would have had a better petition had she fortified it with some of the allegations, the absence of which has drawn some comment in ;the majority opinion. However, giving this petition the liberal interpretation to which it is entitled as against demurrer, I am forced to the conclusion that the question of whether the alleged acts of defendants constitute wantonness is one which should be determined by the trier of the facts — and that it is not for the courts to say upon a demurrer to a petition as comprehensive as the one now before us, that the alleged acts are insufficient as a matter of law to constitute wantonness. To my notion, the petition was . good as against demurrer.