Furniss v. Waters, 1270A279

• Decision Date: 30 December 1971
• Docket Number: No. 1270A279,No. 1,1270A279,1
• Citation: 277 N.E.2d 48,150 Ind.App. 566
• Parties: Charlene FURNISS and Stanley Furniss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harold C. WATERS, Defendant-Appellee
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 48

277 N.E.2d 48

150 Ind.App. 566

Charlene FURNISS and Stanley Furniss, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Harold C. WATERS, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 1270A279.

Appellate Court of Indiana, Division No. 1.

Dec. 30, 1971.

Ronald L. Sowers, Torborg, Miller, Moss, Harris & Sowers, Robert J. Parrish, Jackson, Parrish & Larson, Ft. Wayne, for plaintiffs-appellants.

J. Michael O'Hara and John F. Lyons, Barrett, Barrett & McNagny, Fort Wayne, for defendant-appellee.

SULLIVAN, Presiding Judge.

This consolidated appeal from judgments in companion cases filed by Mr. and Mrs. Furniss, plaintiffs-appellants, involves the Indiana guest statute.

In November of 1966, soon after she was hired to work at the local General Electric plant, Mrs. Furniss called Mr. Waters, defendant-appellee, who was her brother-in-law and also an employee at the plant, to arrange for a daily ride to and from the plant, with a payment of $3 weekly. As a result of such arrangement, Mr. Waters made a substantial departure from his normal route in order to pick up Mrs. Furniss around 6 a.m. and to drop her off in the late afternoon. At the end of each of the 28 weeks (7 months) that they rode together, Mrs. Furniss left $3 on the front seat of Mr. Waters' car.

On May 29, 1967, while en route to work, Mr. Waters, as alleged in the complaint and as later admitted by him, ran a 'red light' at approximately 6:15 a.m. and collided with another vehicle, thus causing bodily injury to Mrs. Furniss. The companion complaints of Mr. and Mrs. Furniss were filed May 14, 1969, both alleging that Mrs. Furniss was a paying passenger at the time of the accident.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment on February 24, 1970. The trial court granted the motion of the defendant, finding that there was lack of 'payment' and that the blood relationship of Mr. Waters and Mrs. Furniss was the chief motivating reason for the rides. The Furniss' unsuccessful motion to correct errors alleged that the decision of the trial court was contrary to law and not supported by the supporting documents submitted at the time of summary judgment.

For purposes of appeal the appellants have reduced their allegations of error to one essential issue: Was the trial court correct in deciding, as a matter of law, that there was not 'payment' given by Furniss (passenger) to Waters (auto owner and operator) of the kind or character required by the Indiana guest statute so as to exempt Mrs. Furniss from guest status at the time of the collision?

'PAYMENT' UNDER INDIANA GUEST STATUTE

The Indiana guest statute, IC 1971 9--3--3--1, being Ind.Ann.Stat. § 47--1021 (Burns 1965 Repl.), is as follows:

'The owner, operator, or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest, while being transported without payment therefor, in or upon such motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the wanton or wilful misconduct of such operator, owner, or person responsible for the operation of such motor vehicle.' (Emphasis supplied)

It is clear under the case law of this state that determination of 'payment' involves not simply a weighing of benefits given and received but also contemplation of the factors surrounding the transportation which are indicative of the status of the passenger.

The words 'without payment therefor' imply some valuable consideration given for the ride. The owner or operator must be directly compensated in a substantial and material way by the presence of the person injured for there to be 'payment'. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Stitzle (1942) 220 Ind. 180, 41 N.E.2d 133.

Even where there is a flow of benefits, such a showing is not dispositive of the issue of status. As stated in Allison v. Ely et al. (1960) 241 Ind. 248, 170 N.E.2d 371, there are many factors to be considered by a court which distinguish a guest riding without payment for such transportation from a passenger for hire:

'(1) The motives and purposes which actuate the transaction are of prime importance. (Citations omitted)

'(2) The motivating reasons for the invitation to ride determine the character of the passenger, and the purpose of the trip. (Citations omitted)

'(3) If the purpose of the trip is primarily for business as distinguished from pleasure or social, and the presence of the passenger in the motor vehicle directly compensates the owner or operator thereof in a substantial and material way, then the guest relationship does not exist. (Citations omitted)

'(4) If the trip is primarily social or for pleasure as distinguished from business, incidental benefits, even the payment of money, do not exclude the guest relationship. (Citations omitted)

'(5) The word 'guest' has more 'social' than 'business' significance. (Citation omitted)' 241 Ind. 248, at 262--263, 170 N.E.2d 371, at 378.

Thus, evidence which shows the flow of benefits, the purpose of the trip, and the motives of the parties in arranging such transportation, must be carefully weighed in order to determine the exact status of the plaintiff. A single factor, such as familial relationship, cannot be held singularly determinative of the issue when other factors are present.

In granting summary judgment for the defendant, the trial court found erroneously, we feel, that the daily trips to and from the General Electric plant were primarily social in nature, and that the money given to Waters was therefore 'incidental.' The court appears to place great emphasis upon the familial relationship between Mrs. Furniss and Mr. Waters--sister-in-law and brother-in-law--in reaching the conclusion that there was no genuine issue of fact. Such conclusion does not necessarily follow where, as here, the familial relationship is not demonstrably one of cordiality and love, and where the owner-operator is requested to provide daily transportation to work. See Martinez v. Southern Pacific Co. (1955) 45 Cal.2d 244, 288 P.2d 868 (Where several members of the same family alternately drove other family members to work, the court found an expectation of benefit to the family); McNanna v. Gach (1964) 51 Ill.App.2d 276, 201 N.E.2d 191 (Where a college student drove fellow students to campus for $2 weekly, the court found substantial economic benefit to defendant since he was obligated to make the trip in any event). ¹

In this case the purpose of the trips could hardly have been mistaken. Both Mr. Waters and Mrs. Furniss were employed at the local General Electric plant and both had to be on the job at an early morning hour. From the affidavit and depositions of record there is no indication that their sunrise journeys were ever diverted from either of the two direct routes taken to the plant, or that any social purposes were ever served by such daily trips.

There was, we think, an adequacy of benefit flowing to Mr. Waters from the fact of Mrs. Furniss' presence in the vehicle. While there is evidence of Mr. Waters' reluctance to take the three dollars per week proffered by Mrs. Furniss (argued by Mrs. Furniss to be due to the familial relationship existing between them), Waters did not reject it. (Whether the three-dollar weekly payment was substantial and material is at least subject to differing viewpoints.)

We do not, however, rely upon the three-dollar sum as being sufficient to remove Mrs. Furniss from guest status. Rather, we find the intangible benefits 'peace of mind' and 'familial harmony,' which the daily presence of Mrs. Furniss in Mr. Waters' vehicle may have bestowed upon him, to be so substantial and material, in light of the obvious purpose of the daily trips, that Mrs. Furniss might be considered by reasonable minds as a paid passenger.

The motives of the parties were not identical, nor need they be. Mrs. Furniss was motivated primarily by the desire for business transportation, and only incidentally by the desire for familial association. By his own admission, Mr. Waters found motive primarily in relief of conjugal pressure to be amiable...