DOCSLIB.ORG

Guest Statute Violates Equal Protection

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Guest Statute Violates Equal Protection SMU Law Review Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 8 1973 Guest Statute Violates Equal Protection Dana G. Kirk Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Dana G. Kirk, Note, Guest Statute Violates Equal Protection, 27 SW L.J. 881 (1973) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol27/iss5/8 This Case Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. 1973] NOTES was, "the legislative history of Title VII is in such a confused state that it is of minimal value in its explication. '79 In sum, as the dissent suggests, "the Court adjudicates wherein the Con- gress failed to legislate." 80 Moreover, the court allowed disclosure of con- gressionally-protected confidential information before any judicial pro- ceeding compelled the production of such evidence. Gary John Manny Guest Statute Violates Equal Protection Plaintiff brought suit against the driver of an automobile in which he was riding for damages resulting from injuries received when the host's vehicle crossed the centerline of a highway and collided with an embank- ment. The plaintiff alleged willful misconduct and negligence and the de- fendant pleaded the California guest statute1 as a bar to the negligence count of the action. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment on the negligence issue. The issue of willful misconduct was tried by a jury, which returned a verdict for the defendant. Plaintiff ap- pealed only from the summary judgment against his cause of action in negli- gence. Held, reversed: The classification of passengers by an automobile guest statute which prohibits recovery for ordinary negligence by non-pay- ing passengers does not bear a substantial and rational relationship to the statute's primary purposes of protecting the hospitality of the host driver and preventing collusive lawsuits, and, thus, the guest statute violates the equal protection guarantees of the Constitution of the State of California 2 and the United States Constitution.3 Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 106 Cal. Rptr. 388 (1973). I. THE GUEST STATUTE IN PERSPECTIVE Guest statutes, as well as other types of tort immunities which have either been created by statute or judicial precedent, have been eliminated in many jurisdictions. 4 In California the traditional tort immunity of a property owner as to a trespasser and limited duty as to a licensee has been sup- planted by a duty of ordinary care for all people upon his property.5 Similarly, the parental, 6 charitable, 7 and family s immunities have been 79 Sanchez v. Standard Brands, Inc., 431 F.2d 455, 460 (5th Cir. 1970). 80 472 F.2d at 1152. 1 CAL. VEHICLE CODE § 17158 (West 1971). 2 CAL. CONST. art. 1, §§ 11, 21. 3 U.S. CONST. amend. XIV. 4 See Comment, Judicial Nullification of Guest Statutes, 41 S. CAL. L. REv. 884 (1968). 5 Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108, 443 P.2d 561, 70 Cal. Rptr. 97 (1968). 6 See Gibson v. Gibson, 3 Cal. 3d 914, 479 P.2d 648, 92 Cal. Rptr. 288 (1971). 7 See Malloy v. Fong, 37 Cal. 2d 356, 232 P.2d 241 (1951). 8 See Emery v. Emery, 45 Cal. 2d 421, 289 P.2d 218 (1955). SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 27 abolished in California because they were over-inclusive and prevented many legitimate suits as well as collusive ones. Although California has been one of the more progressive jurisdictions in removing immunities created by the judiciary or the legislature and has returned for the most part to the common-law standard of care, many other jurisdictions have also taken steps to remove some types of tort immunities.9 At common law a guest passenger could recover for an injury caused by the negligence of the driver of a vehicle. 10 No distinction was drawn between paying and non-paying passengers, but twenty-seven states have enacted automobile guest statutes drawing such distinctions in derogation of the common law." While the provisions vary, each requires a lower standard of care to be exercised by the host driver with respect to non- paying passengers. 12 The California guest statute allows only certain classes of plaintiffs to recover for the ordinary negligence of their driver. 13 The statute does not bar a passenger's action for ordinary negligence of the driver if the pas- senger has given any compensation for the ride, 14 or if the non-paying pas- senger can show that the driver was intoxicated. 15 The California statute 9 Charitable immunity has been abolished in other jurisdictions as well as California. See, e.g., Ray v. Tucson Medical Center, 72 Ariz. 22, 230 P.2d 220 (1951); Haynes v. Presbyterian Hosp. Ass'n, 241 Iowa 1269, 45 N.W.2d 151 (1950); Sheehan v. North Country Community Hosp., 273 N.Y. 163, 7 N.E.2d 28 (1937). Also, parental im- munity has been abrogated in several jurisdictions. See, e.g., Silesky v. Kelman, 281 Minn. 431, 161 N.W.2d 631 (1968); France v. A.P.A. Transp. Corp., 56 N.J. 500, 267 A.2d0 490 (1970). 1 Perkins v. Galloway, 194 Ala. 265, 69 So. 875 (1915); Callet v. Alioto, 210 Cal. 65, 290 P. 438 (1930); Bauer v. Greiss, 105 Neb. 381, 181 N.W. 156 (1920). 11 When a statute is in derogation of common law it has generally been held that its provisions must be strictly construed. See, e.g., Weber v. Pinyan, 9 Cal. 2d 226, 70 P.2d 183 (1937); Clinger v. Duncan, 166 Ohio St. 216, 2 Ohio Op. 2d 31, 141 N.E.2d 156 (1957). 12 See Comment, supra note 4, at 898-901. 13 CAL. VEHICLE CODE § 17158 (West 1971): No person riding in or occupying a vehicle owned by him and driven by another person with his permission and no person who as a guest accepts a ride in any vehicle upon a highway without giving compensation for such ride, nor any other person has any right of action for the civil damages against the driver of the vehicle or against any other person legally liable for the conduct of the driver on account of personal injury to or the death of the owner or guest during the ride, unless plaintiff in any such action establishes that the injury or death proximately resulted from the intoxication or willful misconduct of the driver. 14 See, e.g., Whitechat v. Guyette, 19 Cal. 2d 428, 122 P.2d 47 (1942), where the passenger promised some future monetary compensation for the ride he was entitled to recover. In Boykin v. Boykin, 260 Cal. App. 2d 768, 67 Cal. Rptr. 520 (1968), the court held that sharing of expenses for a trip which is primarily social in nature is not compensation paid by the passenger to the driver. However, if the driver's motivating influence for providing the transportation was monetary payment, sharing of expenses will be considered compensation within the meaning of the statute. See, e.g., Thompson v. Lacy, 42 Cal. 2d 443, 267 P.2d 1 (1954). See also Comment, supra note 4, at 890. 15 In De Armond v. Turner, 141 Cal. App. 2d 574, 297 P.2d 57 (1956), the court defined an intoxicated driver as one who is so affected as to hamper his ability to operate a car as would an ordinarily prudent man in full possession of his faculties, under similar circumstances. Generally, the injured passenger will not be barred from recovery for the ordinary negligence of an intoxicated driver, merely because he was drinking himself. However, in Reposa v. Pearce, 11 Cal. App. 2d 517, 54 P.2d 475 (1936), the guest was not allowed to recover where he knowingly and intentionally 19731 NOTES also allows recovery by a non-paying passenger if "willful misconduct" by the driver proximately caused the passenger's injury. 16 II. THE GUEST STATUTE AND THE EQUAL PROTECTION CHALLENGE Guest statutes have been held constitutional by ten states where they do not wholly deny an automobile guest an action against the host for injuries received as a result of his negligence. 17 In five states guest statutes have been upheld against the assertion that they unconstitutionally violate the guest's right to equal protection of the law.' s During recent years courts have allowed the state legislatures a wide range of discretion in enacting guest statutes as well as other types of social and economic legislation. There has been a presumption -that these statutes do not violate equal protection guarantees unless the categorization of individuals affected by the statute is clearly arbitrary. 19 TraditionalEqual Protection Analysis. Although the United States Supreme Court has applied a strict standard of review to statutes which rely upon suspect classifications or which affect fundamental interests, 20 ithas been inclined to apply a much more flexible equal protection standard to social and economic legislation. The test which has been applied by the Court with respect to this type of legislation was well stated by Chief Justice Warren in McGowan v. Maryland: "A statutory discrimination will not took part in the drinking which led to the driver's intoxicated condition and the resulting accident. 16 Williams v. Carr, 68 Cal. 2d 579, 440 P.2d 505, 509, 68 Cal. Rptr. 305, 309 (1968). The court stated that "willful misconduct implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is a probable, as distinguished from a possible, result ...
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Case Against the Guest Statute
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 7 (1966) Issue 2 Article 10 May 1966 The Case Against the Guest Statute O. Forrest Morgan Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Transportation Law Commons Repository Citation O. Forrest Morgan Jr., The Case Against the Guest Statute, 7 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 321 (1966), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol7/iss2/10 Copyright c 1966 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr THE CASE AGAINST THE GUEST STATUTE INTRODUCTION Lawes were not made for their own sakes, but for the sake of those who were to be guided by them; and though it is true they are and ought to be sacred, yet, if they be or are become unuseful for their end, they must either be amended if it may be, or new lawes be substituted.' During the late 1920's and early 1930's a number of American states enacted what have come to be called automobile "guest statutes" These acts provide essentially that in order for a guest passenger in an automobile to recover against the driver for injuries, sustained while riding in the vehicle, he must prove the operator negligent to some specified degree above and beyond what is termed "ordinary negli- gence." 3 The statute usually requires a showing of wantoness, will- fulness or gross negligence. In essence this legislation serves simply to relieve the driver of his duty of reasonable care for the safety of his fellow man.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Cases
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 26 Issue 2 Issue 2 - March 1973 Article 4 3-1973 Recent Cases Law Review Staff Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, First Amendment Commons, Property Law and Real Estate Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Law Review Staff, Recent Cases, 26 Vanderbilt Law Review 340 (1973) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol26/iss2/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. RECENT CASES Conflict of Laws-Torts-Lex Loci Delicti Is Proper Law When Parties Are Domiciled in Different Juris- dictions Unless Displacing That Law Advances Forum State's Substantive Law Purposes Without Impeding Interstate Relations or Predictability of Result Plaintiff, an Ontario domiciliary, brought an action in New York for the wrongful death of her husband, also a domiciliary of Ontario, who was killed in a collision in that province' while a passenger in an automobile driven by defendant's2 intestate, a New York domiciliary.3 Defendant pleaded as an affirmative defense the Ontario guest statute, 4 which restricts a guest's recovery to damages for injuries sustained only as a result of his host's gross negligence. Plaintiff argued that because it conflicted with the policy of the New York guest statute,5 the Ontario statute was inapplicable, and moved to dismiss the defense.
    [Show full text]
  • Symposium: Introduction: Genuine Tort Reform
    Roger Williams University Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Vol. 13: No. 1 (Winter 2008) - Article 1 Symposium: Genuine Tort Reform Winter 2008 Symposium: Introduction: Genuine Tort Reform Carl T. Bogus Roger Williams University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Bogus, Carl T. (2008) "Symposium: Introduction: Genuine Tort Reform," Roger Williams University Law Review: Vol. 13 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://docs.rwu.edu/rwu_LR/vol13/iss1/1 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DOCS@RWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Roger Williams University Law Review by an authorized editor of DOCS@RWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Symposium Introduction: Genuine Tort Reform Carl T. Bogus* I am not sure who coined the term "tort reform," but as far as I know it was first used in 1974 in a student article published by the UCLA Law Review. 1 That article was very much a Sixties piece. The author praised Justice Roger Traynor and the California Supreme Court for their leadership in "placing tort liability on the party who is best able to spread the risk of loss." She continued: Though judicial activism is generally regarded by traditional legal process scholars as undesirable, in tort law, it appears to be an appropriate fulfillment of the historical function of the common law-to meld the precedents of the past and needs and concerns of the present. 2 For nearly a decade thereafter, "tort reform" was still occasionally used to refer to efforts to make the tort system more dynamic by making it easier for victims to hold accountable 3 wrongdoers and those who were in a position to prevent harm.
    [Show full text]
  • Capacity of Minors to Be Chargeable with Negligence and Their Ts Andard of Care T
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 57 | Issue 3 Article 7 1978 Capacity of Minors to Be Chargeable with Negligence and Their tS andard of Care T. Edward Icenogle University of Nebraska College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation T. Edward Icenogle, Capacity of Minors to Be Chargeable with Negligence and Their Standard of Care, 57 Neb. L. Rev. 763 (1978) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol57/iss3/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Comment Capacity of Minors to be Chargeable with Negligence And Their Standard of Care The infant is favored by the law not so much on his lack of knowledge as because1 of indiscretion,imprudence, lack of judgment, and impul- siveness. I. INTRODUCTION Nebraska law, like that of other American jurisdictions, be- stows considerable favoritism upon children. Although a minor, like an adult, may sue2 or be sued, 3 the minor is the subject of legal favoritism predicated on the disability of infancy which has long been recognized at common law.4 This favoritism is obvious in the special treatment accorded youthful criminal offenders; 5 in contract law, under which the contracts of minors are in some cases voidable; 6 in the law of intentional tort;7 and in the law of negligent tort.8 It is the last of these examples of favoritism-the special consideration given minors in the law of negligence-which is the topic of this comment.
    [Show full text]
  • MASS TORTS at the NEUTRAL FORUM: a CRITICAL ANALYSIS of the ALI’S PROPOSED CHOICE RULE 56 Albany L
    MASS TORTS AT THE NEUTRAL FORUM: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE ALI’S PROPOSED CHOICE RULE 56 Albany L. Rev. 807 (1993) * Louise Weinberg TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTORY..........................................................809 A. Conflict, crisis, and confusion at the ALI....................809 A motion is defeated....................................................809 The policy problem......................................................811 The irrationality problem.............................................811 B. The proposed liability choice rule for mass tort ........812 The problem of mass litigation disaster in mass disaster litigation......................................................812 The neutral forum and the choice-of-law process .......813 The draft liability choice rule: Its setting ....................814 The draft liability choice rule: Its shape ......................814 II. A CRITIQUE FROM POLICY........................................816 A. Policy at the neutral mass tort forum.........................816 Whatever happened to policy?....................................816 A positivist’s question: Whose policy?......................817 B. National policy and the remedial choice....................818 What is national policy in mass tort cases? .................818 National conflicts policy..............................................819 The defense bias of “neutral” choice rules..................819 The defense bias of “neutral” choice rules..................819 The problem of the impolitic or dangerous choice......822
    [Show full text]
  • The Return of the Unprovided-For Case Michael S
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2017 The Return of the Unprovided-For Case Michael S. Green William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Green, Michael S., "The Return of the Unprovided-For Case" (2017). Faculty Publications. 1871. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs/1871 Copyright c 2017 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs THE RETURN OF THE UNPROVIDED-FOR CASE MichaelS. Green* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................... 764 II. SOME BACKGROUND ........................................................... 765 A. VESTED RIGHTS THEORY ................................................ 765 B. GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST ANALYSIS ............................ 770 1. False Conflicts ........................................................ 770 2. Loss-Allocating and Conduct-Regulating Rules .... 773 3. True Conflicts ......................................................... 77 5 C. UNPROVIDED-FOR CASES ............................................... 777 1. Neumeier v. Kuehner ............................................. 778 2. The Pro-Resident Bias ............................................ 780 III. KRAMER'S "MYTH" OF THE UNPROVIDED-FOR CASE ........... 784 A. AFFIRMATIVE-DEFENSE CAS;ES ...................................... 785 B. NO-CAUSE-OF-ACTION CASES ........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Lapses of Attention in Medical Malpractice and Road Accidents Robert D
    University of Chicago Law School Chicago Unbound Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics Economics 2014 Lapses of Attention in Medical Malpractice and Road Accidents Robert D. Cooter Ariel Porat Follow this and additional works at: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert D. Cooter & Ariel Porat, "Lapses of Attention in Medical Malpractice and Road Accidents" (Coase-Sandor Institute for Law & Economics Working Paper No. 690, 2014). This Working Paper is brought to you for free and open access by the Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. It has been accepted for inclusion in Coase-Sandor Working Paper Series in Law and Economics by an authorized administrator of Chicago Unbound. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHICAGO COASE-SANDOR INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 690 (2D SERIES) Lapses of Attention in Medical Malpractice and Road Accidents Robert Cooter and Ariel Porat THE LAW SCHOOL THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO June 2014 This paper can be downloaded without charge at: The University of Chicago, Institute for Law and Economics Working Paper Series Index: http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html and at the Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2455828 329 Lapses of Attention in Medical Malpractice and Road Accidents Robert Cooter and Ariel Porat* A doctor who lapses and injures her patient, and a driver who lapses and causes an accident, are liable under negligence law for the harm done.
    [Show full text]
  • No-Fault Automobile Insurance and the Conflict of Lawsâ•Flcutting The
    3Duke law 3ounat VOLUME 1972 JUNE NUMBER 2 NO-FAULT AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS-CUTTING THE GORDIAN KNOT HOME-STYLE P. JOHN KOZYRIS* The system of reparations for losses caused by automobiles is undergoing a fundamental reevaluation in the United States. Oppo- nents of the traditional tort approach, which places the loss on the shoulders of negligent drivers and their insurers, have demonstrated rather convincingly that it is wasteful, inadequate and anachronistic. It is wasteful because an inordinate amount of time, effort and money is expended in the disposition of claims which results in the clogging of courts and reduction of ultimate recoveries; inadequate because many injured persons remain uncompensated on the theory that they were negligent or contributorily negligent, and because compensation is too often delayed or inequitably distributed; and anachronistic because it is based upon fault principles when it is becoming increas- ingly apparent that a large proportion of accidents are due to the inherent risks of driving rather than individual fault.' * J.D. 1960, Cornell University; Visiting Professor of Law, Duke University, 1971-72; Professor of Law, College of Law, Ohio State University. The author gratefully acknowledges the valuable research assistance of D. Todd Christoffer- son, a third-year student at the Duke University School of Law. 1. See U.S. Dep't of Transportation, Motor Vehicle Crash Losses and Their Compensation in the United States 94-100 (1971). This is the final report following a comprehensive two-year study of the problem undertaken by the Dep't of Transportation, pursuant to J. RES.
    [Show full text]
  • Treatment of Guest Passengers: Georgia Maintains Its Minority Rule
    Treatment of Guest Passengers: Georgia Maintains Its Minority Rule I. THE RISE AND FALL OF GUEST STATUTES A. Development Since the advent of the automobile, approximately half of the states have adopted guest statutes1 or guest rules." These statutes and rules 1. Twenty-nine states have had guest statutes at one time since the first one was passed in 1927. ALA. CODE § 32-1-2 (1975); ARK. STAT. ANN. § 75-913 (1979); CAL. VEH. CODE § 17158 (West 1971) (declared unconstitutional in Brown v. Merlo, 8 Cal. 3d 855, 506 P.2d 212, 106 Cal. Rptr. 388 (1973), and amended in 1973 to delete application of section to guests); COLO. REV. STAT. § 42-9-101 (1973) (repealed 1975); 1927 Conn. Pub. Acts 4404 (1927) (repealed 1937); DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 21, § 6101 (1979); FLA. STAT. ANN. § 320.59 (1978) (repealed 1972); IDAHO CODE § 49-1401 (1967) (declared unconstitutional in Thomp- son v. Hagan, 96 Idaho 19, 523 P.2d 1365 (1974)); ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 95 /2, § 10-201 '(Smith-Hurd 1971) (restricted to hitchhikers by 1971 amendment); IND. CODE ANN. § 9-3-3- 1 (Burns 1973); IOWA CODE ANN. § 321.494 (West Supp. 1979); KAN. STAT. ANN. § 8-122b (1975) (repealed 1974, as well as declared unconstitutional in Henry v. Bauder, 213 Kan. 751, 518 P.2d 362 (1974)); 1930 Ky. Acts. ch. 85 (declared unconstitutional in 1932 in Lud- wig v. Johnson, 243 Ky. 533, 49 S.W.2d 347 (1932)); MIcH. CoMP. LAWS ANN. § 257.401 (1977) (guest passenger exception declared unconstitutional in Manistee Bank & Trust Co. v.
    [Show full text]
  • Sample MBE II
    SampleMBEII.qxp 1/29/2010 10:05 AM Page 1 Sample MBE II July 1991 ® PREFACE The Multistate Bar Examination (MBE) is an objective six-hour examination developed by the National Conference of Bar Examiners (NCBE) that contains 200 questions. It was first administered in February 1972, and is currently a component of the bar examination in most U.S. jurisdictions. From time to time NCBE releases test questions to acquaint test- takers with authentic test materials. This publication consists of the actual 200-item, multiple-choice test that was administered nationally in July 1991. The July 1991 MBE consisted of questions in the following areas: Constitutional Law, Contracts, Criminal Law and Procedure, Evidence, Real Property, and Torts. Applicants were directed to choose the best answer from four stated alternatives. The purpose of this publication is to familiarize you with the format and nature of MBE questions. The questions in this publication should not be used for substantive preparation for the MBE. Because of changes in the law since the time the examination was administered, the questions and their keys may no longer be current. The editorial style of questions may have changed over time as well. Applicants are encouraged to use as additional study aids the MBE Online Practice Exams 1 and 2 (MBE OPE 1 and OPE 2), both available for purchase online at www.ncbex2.org/catalog. These study aids, which include explanations for each option selected, contain questions from more recently administered MBEs that more accurately represent the current content and format of the MBE. If you use the questions in this publication as a practice exam, you should not rely on your raw score to identify how well you are doing.
    [Show full text]
  • SMU Law Review
    SMU Law Review Volume 8 Issue 3 Survey of Southwestern Law for 1953 Article 13 1954 Torts Hubert Jr. Gentry Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Hubert Jr. Gentry, Torts, 8 SW L.J. 354 (1954) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol8/iss3/13 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 8 TORTS WRONGFUL DEATH STATUTE - CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AS A DEFENSE New Mexico. Le Doux v. Martinez' called for a construction of the New Mexico wrongful death statute with regard to de- fenses which might be interposed to an action based thereon. A child two years and eight months of age had attempted to cross a street in the middle of a block and had been struck and killed by a taxicab driven by an agent of the defendant. The child was, at the time, in the care and custody of an uncle. As a first separate defense the taxi company pleaded the contributory negligence of the plaintiffs in permitting the child on the street at the time and place of the accident, and as a second separate defense pleaded the contributory negligence of the child. The statute to be construed is in part as follows: Whenever any person shall die from any injury resulting from, or occasioned by the negligence, unskillfulness or criminal intent of any officer, agent, servant or employee ..
    [Show full text]
  • Landowner Liability Under the Wyoming Recreational Use Statute
    Land & Water Law Review Volume 15 Issue 2 Article 9 1980 Landowner Liability under the Wyoming Recreational Use Statute Michael K. Davis Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water Recommended Citation Davis, Michael K. (1980) "Landowner Liability under the Wyoming Recreational Use Statute," Land & Water Law Review: Vol. 15 : Iss. 2 , pp. 649 - 670. Available at: https://scholarship.law.uwyo.edu/land_water/vol15/iss2/9 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Land & Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Law Archive of Wyoming Scholarship. Davis: Landowner Liability under the Wyoming Recreational Use Statute LANDOWNER LIABILITY UNDER THE WYOMING RECREATIONAL USE STATUTE If one were to ask any first year law student to describe the historical nature of the liability of owners and occupiers of land for injuries to persons entering thereon, and to discuss trends in that area of the law, it's likely that he would outline the three common law classifications of tres- passer, licensee, and invitee, with corresponding duties of care, and exceptions.' He would add, no doubt, that the trend in a minority of jurisdictions is to abolish these classifica- tions entirely and substitute a uniform standard of reason- able care under the circumstances,' or to at least abolish the distinction between licensees and invitees and to require ordinary care as to both.' A Wyoming student would prob- ably tell you that the Wyoming courts have not followed these trends, so that one still needs to concern himself with these three classifications.
    [Show full text]