Brady v. Acs
| Decision Date | 04 March 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 775S165,775S165 |
| Citation | 342 N.E.2d 837,264 Ind. 285 |
| Parties | Richard BRADY, Appellant (Defendant below), v. Carmen ACS, Administratrix of the Estate of Santiago Lazaro, Deceased, Appellee (Plaintiff below). |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Marshall E. Williams, Heeter, Johnson, Salb & Williams, Indianapolis, for appellant.
Stephen H. Meyer, Byron M. Chudom, (Chudom & Pressler, Schererville, of counsel), for appellee.
Plaintiff's (Appellee's) decedent was a guest passenger in an automobile operated by Appellant (defendant) and was killed in the accident out of which this case arose. Plaintiff brought her action for wrongful death, alleging both negligence and 'wilful or wanton misconduct' by the defendant. Plaintiff filed a motion for a pretrial determination of the constitutionality of Ind. Code 1971, 9--3--3--1, generally referred to as the 'Indiana Guest Statute' which precludes liability of hosts for injuries or death of non-paying guest passengers, unless caused by 'wilful or wanton misconduct.'
The trial court, upon the foregoing motion, ruled that the guest statute was unconstitutional as a denial of the equal protection of law, and the cause proceeded to trial upon certain stipulations of fact, certain contested issues of fact and contested issues of law.
Following the submission of the evidence, the defendant moved for a directed verdict for the reason that there was no evidence to support a finding of 'wilful or wanton misconduct' as required by the guest statute. This motion was denied.
Thereupon, the plaintiff moved for a directed verdict upon the issue of liability, which motion asserted that the only inference that could be drawn from the evidence was that the defendant 'negligently' operated his vehicle and thereby proximately caused the decedent's death. This motion was sustained. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and judgment was rendered thereon.
The issue raised by this appeal has been resolved by our disposition of the identical issue in Dempsey v. Leonherdt (Green), Ind., 341 N.E.2d 763, handed down February 16, 1976. In that case, we upheld the guest statute against federal and state constitutional challenges of denial of due process and equal protection of the law.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant have, by their briefs, attempted to inject issues that are not properly before this Court and cannot be determined in this appeal. Defendant contends that if...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nehring v. Russell
...have sustained the guest statutes of their respective states: Dempsey v. Leonherdt, 1976, 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E.2d 763; Brady v. Acs, 1976, 264 Ind. 285, 342 N.E.2d 837, reh. den., dismissed for lack of substantial federal question, 429 U.S. 803, 97 S.Ct. 35, 50 L.Ed.2d 64; Beasley v. Bozem......
-
Andert v. Fuchs
...not affirm the trial court on those grounds, since the defense was not presented before the trial court. See, E. g., Brady v. Acs (1976), 264 Ind. 285, 342 N.E.2d 837, appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 803, 97 S.Ct. 35, 50 L.Ed.2d 64. We note, too, that the determination of whether plaintiff incur......
-
Fielitz v. Allred
...of Indiana or the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. See also, Brady v. Acs (1976), Ind., 342 N.E.2d 837. The next issue presented for our review concerns the proper test to be applied under Indiana Rules of Procedure, Trial Rule 41......
-
Estate of Holderbaum v. Gibson, 3-776A169
..."9) That this court made such entry based on the authority of Sidle v. Majors and prior to the decision of the Supreme Court in Brady v. Acs, Ind., 342 N.E.2d 837. "10) By its granting the defendants' T.R. 50(A) motion after trial, and setting aside the verdict of the jury, this court injec......