Gibson v. Holderbaum's Estate, 3-779A209

Decision Date08 December 1980
Docket NumberNo. 3-779A209,3-779A209
Citation413 N.E.2d 614
PartiesPatricia GIBSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The ESTATE of Paul E. HOLDERBAUM and Florence Holderbaum, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtIndiana Appellate Court

Robert F. Gonderman, Gonderman Law Office, South Bend, for plaintiff-appellant.

William J. Reinke, Thornburg, McGill, Deahl, Harman, Carey & Murray, South Bend, for defendants-appellees.

HOFFMAN, Judge.

This appeal contests a judgment on the evidence which was granted in favor of the defendant at the close of the plaintiff's case in an action for personal injuries. The plaintiff was a guest in a car driven by Paul Holderbaum and, thus, this case is governed by the Indiana Guest Statute found at IC 1971, 9-3-3-1 et seq. (Burns 1980 Repl.). The case proceeded on a theory of wanton misconduct by the driver which caused the plaintiff's injuries.

To properly grant a judgment on the evidence, the trial court must find that the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom would require a reasonable man to conclude, as a matter of law, that the defendant's actions did not constitute wanton misconduct. If the evidence presented by the plaintiff raises, at least, a reasonable inference of wanton misconduct, then it was reversible error for the court to grant the judgment on the evidence. Sili v. Vinnedge (1979), Ind.App., 393 N.E.2d 251.

A review of the many cases decided under the Indiana Guest Statute indicates that the detailed factual descriptions of the accident are of critical importance. In the present case, the relevant facts occurred at approximately 8:00 P.M. on November 15, 1966. Patricia Gibson, then fifteen years old, and Paul Holderbaum, sixteen years old, were at the home of a friend, Connie Boran, playing records and enjoying themselves. Three other friends were also present. While they were at the Boran home, the plaintiff, Holderbaum and two others decided they no longer wanted to be with the remaining two friends. They decided to have Mrs. Boran ask them all to leave. After the unwanted friends had left, the plaintiff, Holderbaum and the two other friends planned to return to the Boran home and continue their party. The four who were to return left in Holderbaum's automobile. The unwanted couple left in a second vehicle. The cars proceeded in opposite directions on State Highway 23 in St. Joseph County with Holderbaum going in a northeasterly direction. After passing the intersection with Redwood Road, he continued another two tenths of a mile down the road where he pulled into Kline Trail and turned around. He quickly accelerated to a speed which was later estimated by the state police to be approximately 65 miles an hour. Shortly before again reaching the intersection of Highway 23 and Redwood Road, the passengers in the Holderbaum vehicle noticed the second vehicle, belonging to their unwanted friends, driving toward them on the opposite side of the road.

Suddenly, without any warning to his passengers, Holderbaum attempted to make a left turn from Highway 23 onto Redwood Road. He lost control of the car, went off the road, hit a utility pole and the car rolled over on its top. Paul Holderbaum died as a result of the injuries he received and the plaintiff sustained deep facial lacerations when she was thrown through the windshield. The car traveled approximately 215 feet from the point where Holderbaum first applied his brakes to its final resting position in the field. Sixty-six feet of heavy skid marks and eighty-five feet of broken skid marks were left on the roadway. These facts were presented by the plaintiff at trial.

The test for determining liability under the Guest Statute has been clearly established in Indiana. To be guilty of wanton misconduct, the driver must (1) be conscious of his misconduct; (2) be motivated by a desire to assert himself or his interests above and beyond, or in reckless indifference for, the safety of his guest; and, (3) he must do so knowing that his conduct subjects them to a probability of injury. Brown v. Saucerman (1957), 237 Ind. 598, 145 N.E.2d 898. In addition to these elements, the court in Brueckner v. Jones (1970), 146 Ind.App. 314, 255 N.E.2d 535 set forth four factors to be considered in the evaluation of a guest case.

"a. An error of judgment or a mistake standing alone, on the part of the host, will not amount to wanton or wilful misconduct.

"b. The host must have manifested an attitude adverse to the guest, or of 'perverseness,' in that the host must have shown he was indifferent to the consequences of his conduct.

"c. The entire course of conduct of the host leading up to the accident must be considered.

"d. The host must have had actual knowledge of danger confronting the guest."

255 N.E.2d at 543.

In rendering the judgment on the evidence, the trial court specifically found that the evidence failed to support a finding of guideline (b) above. After examining the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, judgment was rendered for the defendant because the court could not find any evidence of "perverseness of attitude." The only element in question on this appeal is guideline (b).

The mental attitude of the host driver is the critical element of a guest case. As stated by the Indiana Supreme Court in Andert v. Fuchs (1979), Ind., at 394 N.E.2d 931, at 934:

"The gravamen of an actionable guest act case, that distinguishes it from actions not under its purview, is the mental attitude of the host driver, when the misconduct occurs. Such attitude with respect to both his driving and his guest must have been one adverse to the welfare of the guest.

"Under the foregoing cited cases, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce substantial evidence of probative value that the defendant consciously and intentionally, with a perverse motive, or reckless indifference as to the consequences, operated his vehicle improperly under known existing conditions." (Citations omitted).

The analysis of the driver's conduct to determine liability was further elaborated in Clouse, etc. v. Peden (1962), 243 Ind. 390, at 397-398, 186 N.E.2d 1, at 4:

"Was appellee's misconduct merely an unthinking or irresponsible act and, therefore, mere negligence or recklessness, or was his conduct consciously performed with a mental attitude which would characterize it as wanton? As noted in Brown v. Saucerman, supra, at page 618, 145 N.E.2d at page 906, Webster's New International Dictionary 3rd Ed. defines wanton as follows: ' "* * * undisciplined; not susceptible to control; * * *. Excessively merry or gay; sportive; frolicsome; * * * marked by or manifesting arrogant recklessness of justice, or the rights or feelings of others, * * *." ' Under the facts heretofore stated a jury may have, with reason, believed that appellee's misconduct was 'wanton' in that he consciously persisted therein in an undisciplined and sportive manner and with arrogant recklessness as to the rights...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Hershberger v. Brooker
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • June 9, 1981
    ...Ind.App., 417 N.E.2d 917 (trans. pending); Gibson v. Estate of Holderbaum, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 614 (transfer pending). In Gibson, at 615-16, Judge Hoffman "The test for determining liability under the Guest Statute has been clearly established in Indiana. To be guilty of wanton misc......
  • Stauffer v. Lothamer
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • April 16, 1981
    ...Vinnedge was conscious of his misconduct and acted with a reckless indifference of probable injury. See also Gibson v. Estate of Holderbaum, (1980) Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 614, 617, where it was concluded, "the driver must bear the legal responsibility for his conscious, impulsive decision to ......
  • Mitchell by Mitchell v. Turner
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • November 4, 1985
    ...Hershberger v. Brooker (1981), Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 672; Stauffer v. Lothamer (1981), Ind.App., 419 N.E.2d 203; Gibson v. Estate of Holderbaum (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 614; Brueckner v. Jones (1970), 146 Ind.App. 314, 255 N.E.2d 535, The critical element in a guest case is the mental at......
  • Barrow v. Talbott
    • United States
    • Indiana Appellate Court
    • February 25, 1981
    ...safety of his guest; and (3) he must do so knowing his conduct subjects his guest to a probability of injury. Gibson v. Estate of Holderbaum (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 614; Brown v. Saucerman (1957), 237 Ind. 598, 145 N.E.2d There was testimony that Debra had traversed this particular rou......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT