Holbrook v. Ramsey, Civ. No. 4340.
| Decision Date | 04 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 4340. |
| Citation | 254 F. Supp. 94 |
| Parties | Connie HOLBROOK v. Stanley RAMSEY and Clifford Ramsey. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana |
Owen Crumpacker, Morton L. Efron, Hammond, Ind., for plaintiff.
Fred Stults, Jr., Gary, Ind., for defendant.
The complaint is in one count and purports to assert claims against defendants Stanley Ramsey and Clifford Ramsey arising out of an automobile accident in which plaintiff was riding as a guest passenger in an automobile driven by defendant Stanley Ramsey and owned by defendant Clifford Ramsey. Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant Stanley Ramsey upon a theory of wilful and wanton misconduct pursuant to the Guest Act (Burns' Ann.St. 47-1021). Plaintiff seeks to recover from defendant Clifford Ramsey upon a theory of negligence, alleging that Clifford Ramsey negligently entrusted his automobile to an incompetent driver. The issue raised by defendant Clifford Ramsey's motion to dismiss is whether or not the Guest Act bars a suit against the owner of an automobile for common law negligence in entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver. We hold that such an action is barred.
The issue involved herein is discussed at considerable length in the annotation at 91 A.L.R.2d 323, wherein two divergent views on the subject are analyzed. Most jurisdictions hold that Guest statutes similar to the statute in force in Indiana do bar a suit by a guest passenger against an owner of a motor vehicle for the common law tort of negligent entrustment. Since this issue has not been determined by the courts of Indiana, this Court must adopt the rule which represents the fairest, most logical, and well reasoned view, which, presumably, would be adopted by the highest court of this state.
In the opinion of this Court, the rule which bars an action by a guest passenger against the owner of the automobile for negligently entrusting the vehicle to an incompetent driver is the better rule when considered in relation to the policy, purpose and statutory provisions of the Guest Act, which reads as follows:
47-1021 Guest of owner or operator— Right to damages. 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coons v. Lawlor
...As such, "this court must adopt the role which represents the fairest, most logical and well reasoned view." Holbrook v. Ramsey, 254 F.Supp. 94 (N.D.Ill.1966), quoted in Hershberger v. Brooker, 421 N.E.2d 672, 676 ...
-
Hershberger v. Brooker
...decided by the courts of this state. However, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Holbrook v. Ramsey, (N.D.Ind.1966) 254 F.Supp. 94, in a well reasoned opinion by Judge Beamer, held the guest statute to be applicable in such a case. The court there "Most j......
-
Wagner v. Mines, 41964
...304; Tucker v. Fitzgerald, 247 So.2d 459 (Fla.App., 1971); Forgus v. Hodnett, 401 S.W.2d 104 (Tex.Civ.App., 1966); Holbrook v. Ramsey, 254 F.Supp. 94 (N.D.Ind., 1966). It appears that California, Kansas, and perhaps Georgia have taken a contrary view. It does not appear that we have directl......
-
McDonnell v. Flaharty
...hospitality by insulating hosts from suits by their guests. Sidle v. Majors, 264 Ind. 206, 341 N.E.2d 763 (1976); Holbrook v. Ramsey, 254 F.Supp. 94 (N.D.Ind.1966). We see no basis for concluding that Indiana courts would except pleasure boat owners from the general policy of promoting hosp......