Citation

Muir WK. Mich. Law Rev. 1957; 55(8): 1197-1200.

Copyright

(Copyright © 1957, Michigan Law Review Association)

DOI

10.2307/1286372

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Plaintiff was a gratutious passenger in an automobile driven by defendant. Defendant, intnding to coast to his destination, turned off the ignition, removed the key, and placed it in his pocket. The removal of the key caused the steering gear to lock, and deendant was unable to avoid a collision with a tree. Plaintiff suffered injuries and brought suit. Evidence was adducted to show that in defendant's type of automobile the steering wheel was so constructed as to lock upon removal of the key. Testimony revealed that defendant understood the general operation of the lock, but that the particular mechanism in his car had never worked previously. Even though the Indiana Guest Act bars recovery for injuries to a guest unless caused by "willful or wanton misconduct" of the driver, the trial jury found devendant liable. On appeal the case was reversed.. Wanton or reckless conduct, within the meaning of the meaning of the Indiana guest act, means a conscious persistence in negligent conduct in the gace of a known danger. Sausaman v. Lininger, (Ind. App. 1956) 137 N.E. (2nd) 547.

Guest acts similar to that of Indiana are in effect in 26 U.S. states. Their provisions immunize a negligent driver from liability for injury to gratuitous passengers riding in the defendant's automobile unless the injury has been caused by misconduct variously described as willful, wanton, grossly negligent, reckless, or heedless. For the past thirty years judges have struggled to translate these epithets into a simple, useful statement of a standard of duty owing from the motorist to the passenger -- a standard which would enable the courts to determine under what circumstances a case should be submitted to the jury and, on the other hand, when it should be taken from the jury and decided, in favor of the defendant , as a matter of law.

Language: en