Court Opinion

ID: 7819321
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 17:48:16.377569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:41.672152
License: Public Domain

George Rose Smith, Justice. This is a personal injury suit. Two of the appellees, Janice Covington and her mother-in-law, Beatrice Covington, were injured in a traffic collision in the city of Searcy while they were riding in an ambulance owned by J. & J. Ambulance Service, Inc. The ambulance company did not have liability insurance upon its vehicle. The injured plaintiffs therefore brought suit against their own insurance company, the appellant, under an uninsured motorist clause, and against the other áppellee, Evelyn M. Lewis, who was driving the car that collided with the ambulance. The jury, attributing all the negligence to the driver of the ambulance, made awards of $750 to Janice Covington and $5,000 to Beatrice Covington. For reversal the appellant relies upon three asserted errors in the court’s instructions to the jury. The most serious contention is that the trial court was wrong in ruling as a matter of law that Beatrice Covington was not a guest of the ambulance company. The pertinent facts are that the two women were together upon a street in Searcy when the younger woman, who was pregnant, fainted. Someone called for an ambulance, which arrived promptly. The driver, Charles Steward, had no assistant. A bystander helped him place the patient on a cot in the back of the ambulance. Steward asked if there was anybody with the younger Mrs. Covington. Beatrice Covington said, “I am,” and got in the vehicle. She sat in the back of the ambulance and bathed her daughter-in-law’s face with a wet cloth. On the way to the hospital Steward, driving above the speed limit, ran a stop sign and collided with Mrs. Lewis’s car. The ambulance company’s fee of $25.00 was paid by Beatrice Covington’s husband. The trial court was right in holding that the elder Mrs. Covington was not a guest. In Simms v. Tingle, 232 Ark. 239, 335 S.W. 2d 449 (1960), we defined a guest, with reference to the guest statute, in this language: The geier ' rule for determing the status of a passenger in an automobile is that if the transportation or carriage in its direct operation confers a benefit only on the person to whom the ride is given and no benefits other than such as are incidental to hospitality, companionship, or the like, upon the person extending the invitation, the passenger is a guest within the statutes . . . , but if the carriage tends to the promotion of the mutual interests of both the passenger and the driver for their common benefit, or if the carriage is primarily for the attainment of some objective or purpose of the operator, the passenger is not a guest. We have also noted that the guest statute was passed to remedy the evil of collusive suits where the real defendant is an insurance company, with both the host and the guest interested in establishing liability. Ward v. George, 195 Ark. 216, 112 S.W. 2d 30 (1937). In the case at hand there was no reason for Mrs. Covington and Steward to establish by collusion a fictitious liability on the part of the ambulance company. No relationship of hospitality or companionship existed between Mrs. Covington and Steward. To the contrary, the transportation was a business trip involving (as we shall see) a common carrier and its passengers. It was a single transaction. We find in the proof no fact that would warrant the jury in dividing the transaction into two parts, one being compensated and the other being gratuitous. Upon similar facts the Supreme Court of Texas reasoned that a person in Mrs. Covington’s position might be regarded as a guest of the patient but not as a guest of the ambulance company. Cedziwoda v. Crane-Longley Funeral Chapel, 155 Tex. 99, 283 S.W. 2d 217 (1955). We agree with that court’s conclusion: “Under the facts of this case, a sick person who hires an ambulance for transportation certainly has a right to have someone ride with her in the ambulance. The purpose of Article 6701b is to prevent fraudulent collusion between an insured and a guest. The situation at bar does not fall within the purpose of the statute.” It is next contended that the trial court erred in placing upon the ambulance company the high standard of care that a common carrier owes to its passengers. See AMI 1701 and 1702. According to the ambulance company’s own testimony it was engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire. Upon the proof the trial court was justified in concluding that the ambulance company was a common carrier within our statutes and cases. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 73-1758 (a) (7) (Repl. 1957); Merchants’ Transfer & Whse. Co. v. Gates, 180 Ark. 96, 21 S.W. 2d 406 (1929); Arkadelphia Milling Co. v. Smoker Mdse. Co., 100 Ark. 37, 139 S.W. 680 (1911). Finally, the appellant contends that the trial court should have given AMI 912, imposing upon Mrs. Lewis the duty of driving her car over to the curb and stopping when she heard the ambulance’s siren. In making this argument the appellant concedes that the ambulance was not in fact an emergency vehicle within the purview of AMI 912. Walden v. Hart, 243 Ark. 650, 420 S.W. 2d 968 (1967). Nevertheless, the appellant insists that the instruction should have been given, because Mrs. Lewis could not see the ambulance when she first heard its siren and was therefore under a duty to act upon the assumption that the siren was that of an authorized emergency vehicle, such as a police car or fire engine. That reasoning is unsound. Needless to say, if the siren had proved to have been that of an authorized emergency vehicle, Mrs. Lewis would have acted at her peril in not doing what the law required her to do in the situation. But the ambulance was not an authorized emergency vehicle; so Mrs. Lewis’s duty was merely that of exercising ordinary care. For the court to have given the requested AMI instruction would have clothed the ambulance company with a protected status to which it was not entitled by law. Affirmed. Fogleman, J., dissents.