Goodnight v. Richardson, 84-314

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
Citation688 S.W.2d 941,286 Ark. 38
Docket NumberNo. 84-314,84-314
PartiesSteven W. GOODNIGHT, Appellant, v. Michael J. RICHARDSON and Jensen Construction Company, Appellees.
Decision Date13 May 1985

Guy Jones, Jr., Conway, for appellant.

Laser, Sharp & Mayes, P.A., Barber, McCaskill, Amsler, Jones & Hale, P.A., Little Rock, for appellees.

HICKMAN, Justice.

Steven W. Goodnight sued Michael J. Richardson and Jensen Construction Company after being injured while he was a passenger in a vehicle driven by Richardson. Goodnight alleged Richardson was negligent and exercised willful and wanton misconduct in the operation of the automobile. It was alleged that Jensen Construction Company was negligent in failing to warn the motoring public of repairs it had undertaken on the highway. The trial court granted a directed verdict, which we affirm, finding no merit to appellant's arguments.

On appeal from the granting of a directed verdict, we view the facts most favorable to the appellant. Stalter v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 282 Ark. 443, 669 S.W.2d 460 (1984). On the evening of April 27, 1979, Goodnight and Richardson drove to Little Rock from Pine Bluff to go to some nightclubs. It was purely a social occasion. Goodnight bought gas for Richardson's car in exchange for Richardson agreeing to drive his car. After spending at least six hours at two clubs and having a few drinks each, the two decided to return home. Richardson admitted to having had two drinks. Goodnight asked Richardson if he was able to drive and Richardson said he was.

At about 1:30 a.m., when the parties were returning to Pine Bluff on Interstate 30, they entered a construction area. The middle lane was barricaded, and all traffic going toward Pine Bluff was forced into the left lane. The Pine Bluff exit had a detour over a temporary bridge. Richardson increased his speed to pass a van before the detour. He braked before he took the first curve but, nevertheless, on the second curve he lost control and collided with a bridge enbankment. Goodnight testified that Richardson was going about 70 m.p.h. and that he had told Richardson to slow down. Upon impact, the car was airborne for 37 feet, turned over, and landed on its roof. Goodnight sustained multiple injuries.

Richardson pleaded the guest statute, codified at Ark.Stat.Ann. § 75-913 (Repl.1979), which has since been repealed. Act 13 of 1983. That statute provides that a guest in a car does not have a cause of action against the owner or operator of the car unless the driver's conduct was willful and wanton.

Goodnight was a guest in Richardson's car even though he purchased the gas. We have held that when a trip is for social or recreational purposes, such as in this case, a passenger is a guest even though he purchased the gas. Brand v. Rorke, 225 Ark. 309, 280 S.W.2d 906 (1955).

Goodnight first argues that Richardson's consumption of alcohol, coupled with his driving at an excessive rate of speed, constituted willful and wanton misconduct. We have held that a person who drives while intoxicated may be found to be acting willfully and wantonly. Palmer v. Myklebust, 244 Ark. 5, 424 S.W.2d 169 (1968); Bridges v. Stephens, 238 Ark. 801, 384 S.W.2d 490 (1964); Cooper v. Calico, supra. Here, however, Goodnight testified that he believed that alcohol in no way contributed to the accident. The testimony shows that Richardson had a beer and at least two drinks over a period of eight hours. As stated before, Goodnight asked Richardson if he was fit to drive and obviously accepted Richardson's judgment. Therefore, we will not consider Goodnight's argument which seeks to avoid the application of the guest statute.

Next, it is suggested that Richardson's speed was gross misconduct. The general rule is that speeding by itself is insufficient conduct to be willful and wanton, although it is an important factor to consider. See 6 A.L.R.3d 776 (1966). We have stated that driving at an excessive rate of speed, barely avoiding two accidents and the driver's failure to heed his guest's protests were sufficient to take the issue to the jury. Scott v. Shairrick, 225 Ark. 59, 279 S.W.2d 39 (1952). In another case, Cooper v. Chapman, 226 Ark. 331, 289 S.W.2d 686 (1956), ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Gladden v. Arkansas Children's Hosp.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1987
    ...have observed the rule that on appeal from a directed verdict we view the facts most favorably to the appellant. Goodnight v. Richardson, 286 Ark. 38, 688 S.W.2d 941 (1985); Stalter v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co., 282 Ark. 443, 669 S.W.2d 460 (1984). On appeal Ms. Samples contends the personnel ......
  • Fain v. State, CR
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 13, 1985

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