Emberson v. Buffington
Decision Date | 28 October 1957 |
Docket Number | No. 5-1357,5-1357 |
Citation | 228 Ark. 120,306 S.W.2d 326 |
Parties | Martha EMBERSON et al., Appellants, v. Joe BUFFINGTON, Special Administrator, et al., Appellees. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Donald Poe, Waldron, for appellants.
Hardin, Barton, Hardin & Garner, Ft. Smith, for appellees.
This appeal involves the constitutionality of Section 75-915, Ark.Stats. (1947) Ann., which was passed by the 1935 General Assembly as Act 179. The pertinent part of this statute which is under attack, provides as follows:
'* * * And in no event shall any person related by blood or marriage within the third degree of consanguinity or affinity to such owner or operator, or the husband, widow, legal representative, or heirs of such person, have a cause of action for personal injury, including death resulting therefrom, against such owner or operator while in, entering, or leaving such motor vehicle, provided this act [section] shall not apply to public carriers.'
Dave Buffington, on September 7, 1955, was the owner of, and operating on the highway, a 1950 Chevrolet, on his way from Waldron to Benton. Riding with him as passengers were his wife, Julia Buffington, his mother-in-law, Mrs. Martha Emberson, his father-in-law, Horatio B. Emberson, his sister-in-law, Bertha West, and his nephew, Donald Ray West, a minor. During the course of the journey, the automobile was wrecked, and subsequent thereto, complaints for damages were filed against Buffington by Martha Emberson, Bertha West and Leon West, her husband, Leon West as administrator of the estate of Horatio B. Emberson (who died December 24, 1955), Leon and Bertha West as next friends of Donald Ray West, a minor, and Leon West in his own right. The Logan Circuit Court dismissed the complaints on the basis of the language in the statute quoted above. From such order of dismissal comes this appeal.
Section 13 of Article 2 of the Arkansas Constitution (1874) provides as follows:
'Every person is entitled to a certain remedy in the laws for all injuries or wrongs he may receive in his person, property or character; he ought to obtain justice freely, and without purchase, completely, and without denial, promptly and without delay, conformable to the laws.'
Oddly enough, though the statute in question was passed over twenty-two years ago, the constitutionality of same has not been attacked in any case reaching this Court. In the case of Roberson v. Roberson, 193 Ark. 669, 101 S.W.2d 961, this Court passed upon the validity of Act 61 of 1935, commonly known as the 'Guest Liability Act', (Sec. 75-913, Ark.Stats.Ann.), and made mention of Act 179; under the facts in that litigation, however, it was not necessary to pass upon the validity of Act 179 in disposing of the case. The two acts are very similar. Section 75-913 (Act 61) provides as follows:
'No person transported as a guest in any automotive vehicle upon the public highways of this State shall have a cause of action against the owner or operator of such vehicle for damages on account of any injury, death or loss occasioned by the operation of such automotive vehicle unless such vehicle was wilfully and wantonly operated in disregard of the rights of the others' 1.
The language in the first part of Section 75-915 (Act 179) reiterates the intent of Section 75-913, and then proceeds to add the language quoted at the outset of this Opinion. In the Roberson case, supra, the late Justice Frank G. Smith, in a very comprehensive opinion, discussed the constitutional provisions from other states which are similar to the provisions of our own constitution herein cited. In the Oregon case of Stewart v. Houk, 127 Or. 589, 271 P. 998, 999, 272 P. 893, 61 A.L.R. 1236, the Oregon Supreme Court held unconstitutional a statute of that state which provided that the 'acceptance of a free ride as a guest in a motor vehicle shall be presumed to be a waiver of said guest for liability of accidental injury caused by (the) owner or driver of such motor vehicle.' The act was held to be violative of Section 10, Article I, of the Oregon constitution. On rehearing, the attention of the Oregon court was called to the Connecticut case of SILVER V. SILVER, 108 CONN. 371, 143 A. 240, 65 A.L.R. 943.2 Justice Smith quoted the Oregon opinion on rehearing as follows [193 Ark. 669, 101 S.W.2d 964]:
* * *
'We find no conflict between the Connecticut decision and the one we previously announced. * * *'
* * *'
Further:
* * *'
Justice Smith also cited the Delaware case of Coleman v. Rhodes, 5 W.W.Harr. 120, 35 Del. 120, 159 A. 649, wherein the Supreme Court of Delaware declared unconstitutional a statute of that state relieving the operator or owner of a motor vehicle from any liability whatsoever for injuries suffered or sustained by any person while riding with the owner or in the owner's car free of charge. The same court, in the latter case of Hazzard v. Alexander, 6 W.W.Harr. 212, 36 Del. 212, 173 A. 517, held valid a subsequent statute which provided there should be no cause of action against an operator of an automobile for death of, or damage to, a gratuitous guest unless the accident was intentional or caused by wilful or wanton disregard of the rights of others. Justice Smith then made this pertinent observation:
3 * * *'
Appellee cites the case of Tilghman v. Rightor, 211 Ark. 229, 199 S.W.2d 943, in which case this Court approved an instruction that had been given to the jury quoting Act 179 in its entirety. However, that case involved hitchhikers, unrelated to the driver or owner of the vehicle,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Vogts v. Guerrette
...found no constitutional infirmity in the Illinois guest statute, Ill.Rev.Stat.1941, c. 95 1/2, § 58a. See, also, Emberson v. Buffington, 1957, 228 Ark. 120, 306 S.W.2d 326, upholding the Arkansas guest statute, Ark.Stats. § 75-913; and McMillan v. Nelson, 149 Fla. 334, 5 So.2d 867, sustaini......
-
Greene v. Morse
...v. Wyatt, 359 Mo. 963, 969, 224 S.W.2d 972, 975(1); Yarnall v. Gass, 240 Mo.App. 451, 455, 217 S.W.2d 283, 285(2). In Emberson v. Buffington, 228 Ark. 120, 306 S.W.2d 326, the Supreme Court of Arkansas struck down as unconstitutional the last sentence in Ark. Stats. Sec. 75-915, providing t......
-
Lacey v. Bekaert Steel Wire Corp., Civ. No. 85-2046.
...of the State of Arkansas, which purportedly grants to all persons a remedy for all injuries or wrongs received. Emberson v. Buffington, 228 Ark. 120, 306 S.W.2d 326 (1957). However, it has been held that Art. II, § 13, applies only to actions between individuals. Hardin v. City of DeValls B......
-
Faubus v. Kinney
...the apparent legislative intent, wholly independent of that which was rejected, it must be sustained * * *."' See also Emberson v. Buffington, 228 Ark. 120, 306 S.W.2d 327, and cases cited therein. While these particular cases referred to statutes enacted by the Legislature, the rule is the......
-
Open Courts and Vested Rights
...40. 63 Ill. 2d at 332; See also Thorton v. Mamo Mfg. Co., 99 Ill. App. 3rd 540,425, N.E. 2d 522,526 (1981). 41. Emberson v. Buffington 228 Ark. 120, 306 S.W.2d 326 (1957); Marques v. Rapid Harvest Co., I Ariz. App. 562, 4405 P.2d 814 (1965); Moseley v. Lilly Ice Cream Co., 38 Ariz. 417, 300......