Coleman v. Rhodes
Decision Date | 11 April 1932 |
Citation | 159 A. 649,35 Del. 120 |
Court | Delaware Superior Court |
Parties | CHARLES W. COLEMAN, widower of Sarah A. Coleman, v. MARY S. RHODES |
Superior Court for New Castle County, Summons Case, No. 269 September Term, 1931.
Defendant's demurrer sustained.
W Thomas Knowles for plaintiff.
Clarence A. Southerland (of Ward and Gray) for defendant.
OPINION
The plaintiff's declaration consists of four counts, the first three charging the defendant with the negligent operation of a motor vehicle, which resulted in the death of said Sarah A. Coleman while riding as a nonpaying passenger in the automobile owned by the defendant.
The fourth count differs from the first three in this: that it charges wilful and intentional negligence on the part of the defendant.
The defendant has pleaded to this count, and demurred to the others on the ground that they are not good in law to sustain the plaintiff's right of action because of a statute of this state, Volume 36, Delaware Laws, Chapter 270, § 1, which provides:
"That the operator or owner of a motor vehicle shall be relieved from any liability whatsoever for injuries suffered or sustained by any person while riding with said operator or in said owner's car free of charge."
The sole question to be determined in this case is whether the statute referred to is constitutional. Was it a valid exercise of legislative power?
The case was argued by both sides on the assumption that the Legislature had the power to relieve the operator or owner of a motor vehicle from any liability for injuries to a non-paying passenger caused by ordinary negligence. But it is claimed by the plaintiff, and not denied by the defendant, that the Legislature was without power to relieve such operator or owner from all liability for injuries to a non-paying passenger. The plaintiff contends, that while the operator or owner of a motor vehicle may be relieved by legislative act from liability for injuries to a non-paying passenger caused by ordinary negligence, he cannot be relieved from liability for injuries caused by wilful or gross negligence.
This distinction is recognized in a Connecticut statute which is similar to ours except that it preserves liability where the accident was intentional on the part of the owner or operator, or caused by his heedlessness, or his reckless disregard of the rights of others.
The Connecticut statute was held to be constitutional by the Supreme Court of that state in the case of Silver v. Silver, 108 Conn. 371, 143 A. 240, 242, 65 A. L. R. 943. It was held that it did not deny to guests in motor vehicles the equal protection of the laws or violate any constitutional guarantee, but was proper legislation under the police power of the state.
The Court said:
On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, 280 U.S. 117, 50 S.Ct. 57, 59, 74 L.Ed. 221, the decision of the Connecticut Court was sustained in an opinion which said in part:
The Silver Case has been followed in other Connecticut cases.
As before stated, this case has been argued on the assumption that the Legislature had the right to relieve the owner or operator of a motor vehicle from any liability for injuries to a non-paying passenger caused by ordinary negligence, but not for wilful or gross negligence. For the purposes of this case the defendant concedes the soundness of the proposition, that while the Legislature may restrict or modify the liability, it cannot extinguish the right entirely. It cannot relieve the owner or operator from the consequences of negligence that is intentional or wilful or that is so gross as to amount to a reckless disregard of the rights of others.
In the case of Stewart v. Houk, et al., 127 Ore. 589, 271 P. 998, 272 P. 893, 61 A. L. R. 1236, the Supreme Court of Oregon held a statute similar to ours unconstitutional because it was violative of constitutional guarantees. The Court based its decision upon the statute as a whole. This is apparent from the Court's opinion delivered after an application for a rehearing of the case. The Court differentiated its case from the Connecticut case of Silver v. Silver, saying:
The defendant relies very largely on two well settled rules of law:
1. That the statute must be held valid if it is possible for the Court to do so; that every presumption must be resolved in favor of its validity, and it should not be declared unconstitutional unless the Court is convinced of that fact beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. That the intention of the Legislature must control, if it can be ascertained from the language of the act unless it is obnoxious to some constitutional provision. With the wisdom of the object the Legislature seeks to accomplish the Court should not be concerned.
There is no doubt about the general principles that apply when the validity of a statute is involved, but there is great difficulty in the application of such principles in some cases.
Another principle of law well settled in statutory construction is this--that where the act attempts to accomplish two objects, apparent on its face, one of which the Legislature had the power to accomplish and the other not, the act will be held constitutional as to that part which the Legislature had the power to enact, unless it appears that the Legislature did not intend that it should be operative in part only.
In Mayor and Council...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Magierowski v. Buckley, A--63
...New Jersey from other states whose constitutions prevent change of the common law. Plaintiff cites Coleman v. Rhodes, 5 W.W.Harr. 120, 35 Del. 120, 159 A. 649 (Super.Ct.1932), in support of his contention that a legislature may not by statute deprive a person of a remedy for the invasion or......
-
Vogts v. Guerrette
...as controlling in the matter of water rights. * * *' (Emphasis supplied.) Again, in the Delaware case of Coleman v. Rhodes, 5 W.W.Harr. 120, 35 Del. 120, 159 A. 649 the Supreme Court of Delaware declared unconstitutional a statute of that state relieving the owner or operator of a motor veh......
-
Sidle v. Majors
...such savings provision because it denied a right of action to a guest in an automobile under all circumstances. Coleman v. Rhodes, (1932), Del.Super., 5 W.W.Harr. 120, 159 A. 649. The following quotations from the Gallegher case are expressive of our viewpoint of the restraints imposed by o......
-
Justice v. Gatchell
...the rights of others.'2 It replaced 36 Del.L. Ch. 270, enacted in 1929, which was declared unconstitutional in Coleman v. Rhodes, Del.Super., 5 W.W.Harr. 120, 159 A. 649 (1932).3 But not in our neighboring States of Maryland, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey.4 Commentators have suggested that th......