Keasling v. Thompson, 56364
Decision Date | 24 April 1974 |
Docket Number | No. 56364,56364 |
Citation | 217 N.W.2d 687 |
Parties | Daniel KEASLING, a Minor, by Harlan Keasling, as his Father and Next Friend, and Harlan Keasling, Individually, Appellants, v. Ira THOMPSON and Thomas Murphy, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Richard C. Bauerle, Johnson, Bauerle & Hester, Ottumwa, for appellants.
James W. Crawford and Gerald T. Sullivan, Cedar Rapids, for appellee Ira Thompson.
Heard en banc.
The issue in this case is the constitutionality of Code section 321.494, commonly referred to as the Iowa guest statute. The trial court held it constitutional. We affirm.
Plaintiff Daniel Keasling, a minor, was injured October 31, 1971, while riding in an automobile driven by defendant Ira Thompson's son, when the vehicle collided with another at a rural intersection in Keokuk County. Action was brought by plaintiffs for damages resulting from the accident. Thompson and Thomas Murphy, owner and operator of the other vehicle involved, were made defendants. As amended plaintiffs' petition against Thompson was in three divisions, one alleging recklessness, another alleging specific negligence and the third alleging general negligence under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. Thompson moved to strike the negligence divisions on the ground they failed to state a cause of action under the guest statute. Plaintiffs resisted, alleging the guest statute is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of Amendment 14, United States Constitution, and Article I, section 6, of the Iowa Constitution. The lower court sustained the motion. We granted interlocutory appeal therefrom.
The two equal protection clauses here raised need not be considered separately as both set out substantially the same limitations on state legislation. Graham v. Worthington, 259 Iowa 845, 863, 146 N.W.2d 626, 638.
Code section 321.494 provides:
'The owner or operator of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for any damages to any passenger or person riding in said motor vehicle as a guest or by invitation and not for hire unless damage is caused as a result of the driver of said motor vehicle being under the influence of an alcoholic beverage, a narcotic, hypnotic or other drug, or any combination of such substances, or because of the reckless operation by him of such motor vehicle.'
It was enacted in 1927. Acts 42 G.A., chapter 119. It was entitled 'An Act to amend the law * * * to limit the civil liability of owners and operators of automobiles.' Its provisions were again considered in 1969 when the words 'an alcoholic beverage, a narcotic, hypnotic or other drug, or any combination of such substances' were substituted for the original words 'intoxicating liquor'. Acts 63 G.A., chapter 205, section 4.
Here, as in the lower court, plaintiffs-appellants assert our gurest statute violates equal protection in that the classification made between automobile guests and paying passengers is not rational. In other words, is our guest statute classification rationally based?
No claim is made that a guest's right to sue his host for ordinary negligence is a fundamental right. Therefore the traditional equal protection standard must be applied. The statute must be liberally construed with a view to promote its objects. Murray v. Lang, 252 Iowa 260, 265, 106 N.W.2d 643, 646, and citations.
Plaintiffs have assumed a heavy burden as the following propositions are well established. Ordinarily, statutes, with notable exceptions not here involved, regularly enacted by the legislature will be accorded a strong presumption of constitutionality and all reasonable intendments must be indulged in favor of the validity of the legislation attacked. One who challenges legislation on constitutional grounds has the burden to negate every reasonable basis upon which the statute may be sustained. Where the constitutionality of a statute is merely doubtful or fairly debatable, the courts will not interfere. Thus a statute will not be declared unconstitutional unless it clearly, palpably and without doubt, infringes the constitution. Hearth Corporation v. C--B--R Development Co., Inc., Iowa, 210 N.W.2d 632, 636, 637; State v. Vick, Iowa, 205 N.W.2d 727, 729, and the many authorities cited in these opinions. The legislature is given wide discretion in defining the limits of classes when a statute involves classification of persons or things. If a classification is reasonable and operates equally upon all within the class, it is a valid classification. Brown Enterprises, Inc. v. Fulton, Iowa, 192 N.W.2d 773, 776 and citations.
The judicial branch of the government has no power to determine whether legislative Acts are wise or unwise, nor has it the power to declare an Act void unless it is plainly and without doubt repugnant to some provision of the Constitution. Graham v. Worthington, supra, 259 Iowa 845, 850, 851, 146 N.W.2d 626, 631.
This court has repeatedly recognized the classification established by the legislature in our guest statute. Its purpose is to protect 'the good samaritan' from liability to free-riding passengers as distinguished from passenger liability when the owner or driver is receiving some definite and tangible benefit. Boge v. Jack Link Truck Line, Inc., Iowa, 200 N.W.2d 544, 546; Anderson v. City of Council Bluffs, Iowa, 195 N.W.2d 373, 375; Nielsen v. Kohlstedt, 254 Iowa 470, 473, 117 N.W.2d 900, 903, and citations.
In Marean v. Petersen, 259 Iowa 557, 565, 144 N.W.2d 906, 911, we say: 'Our guest statute, section 321.494, Code, 1962, like most others of its kind, was enacted in order to correct certain well-known evils then existing--protection of the well-meaning good samaritan owner or operator of an automobile.' It cites Powers v. Hatcher, 257 Iowa 833, 836, 135 N.W.2d 114, 116.
In Lunday v. Vogelmann, Iowa, 213 N.W.2d 904, 907, we considered the question of equal protection as it relates to statutory classification. We stated:
.
Our guest statute has not heretofore been challenged on the constitutional question of equal protection. That issue however has been litigated in several other jurisdictions as approximately half the states have guest statutes similar to section 321.494.
A summary of the holdings in other jurisdictions is found in 8 Am.Jur.2d, Automobiles and Highway Traffic, § 472, pp. 36--37:
Perhaps the first case involving the constitutionality of a guest statute is Silver v. Silver (1928), 108 Conn. 371, 143 A. 240. It involved a statute very similar to ours. The court held the classification was not violative of the equal protection clause of the constitution. That holding was appealed and affirmed in Silver c. Silver, 280 U.S. 117, 123, 124, 50 S.Ct. 57--59, 74 L.Ed. 221, 226, where the Supreme Court stated:
'* * *.
Naudzius v. Lahr, 253 Mich. 216, 234 N.W. 581 (1931) has been frequently cited for its excellent constitutional discussion of guest statutes. It was contended the classification was without reasonable basis. The court held the Michigan guest statute constitutional. At page 584 of 234 N.W., it is stated:
'* * *. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Brewer v. Copeland
...the legislature. Richardson v. Hansen, Colo., 527 P.2d 536 (1974); Justice v. Gatchell, Del.Supr., 325 A.2d 97 (1974); Keasling v. Thompson, 217 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa 1974); Duerst v. Limbocker, Or., 525 P.2d 99 (1974); Tisko v. Harrison, 500 S.W.2d 565 (Tex.Civ.App.1973); Cannon v. Oviatt, Utah......
-
Manistee Bank & Trust Co. v. McGowan
...Torts, § 16.15, p. 950 Et seq.; Prosser, Torts (4th ed.), § 34, p. 186.4 Iowa also enacted a guest statute in 1927. In Keasling v. Thompson, 217 N.W.2d 687 (Iowa, 1974), the Iowa Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the statute in a 5--4 decision.5 In Silver v. Silver, 280 U.S. 117......
-
Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Huff
...of support for such statute. (Citations)." State v. Kueny, 215 N.W.2d 215, 216-217 (Iowa 1974). As summarized in Keasling v. Thompson, 217 N.W.2d 687, 689-690 (Iowa 1974): "(Plaintiff has) assumed a heavy burden as the following propositions are well established. Ordinarily, statutes, with ......
-
Catholic Charities of Archdiocese of Dubuque v. Zalesky
...be now entertained by this court, albeit in the abstract. III. At the outset these guiding standards set forth in Keasling v. Thompson, 217 N.W.2d 687, 689--690 (Iowa 1974) come into 'Ordinarily, statutes, with notable exceptions not here involved, regularly enacted by the legislature will ......