Nevarez v. Carrasco
Decision Date | 29 December 1969 |
Docket Number | S.F. 22696 |
Court | California Supreme Court |
Parties | , 462 P.2d 577 Benito NEVAREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Octavio CARRASCO, Defendant and Respondent. |
Clarence B. Knight, Redwood City, for plaintiff and appellant.
Nagle, Vale & McDowall, Nagle, Vale, McDowall & Cotter, and Vernon V. Vale, San Mateo, for defendant and respondent.
Benito Nevarez was injured on December 27, 1964, while riding in a car owned and operated by Octavio Carrasco as they travelled together from Watsonville to San Mateo. Defendant Carrasco lost control of the vehicle on Skyline Boulevard and it rolled over a cliff. In plaintiff's resultant action for personal injuries the jury found for defendant and plaintiff appeals. The problem involves interpretation of California's guest statute, Vehicle Code section 17158. 1
Plaintiff and defendant were casual acquaintances living in a hotel in Watsonville. Both were out of work. According to plaintiff's testimony, the evening before the accident he and defendant engaged in a conversation, in which he told defendant he had been laid off work and wanted to go to San Mateo to enlist the assistance of his brother in finding a job. Defendant offered to take him there in his car and plaintiff promised to 'make it right' by giving defendant a 'few bucks' in San Mateo and by supplying gas for the trip. Defendant also expressed interest in obtaining employment in San Mateo. It was agreed that defendant could stay with plaintiff at his brother's house while they were in San Mateo. As they left Watsonville, defendant drove to a gas station and plaintiff paid for about $3.00 worth of gas for the trip. During the course of the drive before the accident, the men agreed that after they found work they would remain a day or two to do some fishing, using equipment belonging to plaintiff's brother.
Defendant testified that the purpose of the trip was to go fishing in the San Mateo area, using plaintiff's brother's equipment. Defendant denied any interest of his own in San Mateo employment, but indicated that plaintiff had expressed some desire to find work while there. Defendant admitted plaintiff promised to give him some money in San Mateo because his brother owed him $10, and he conceded plaintiff said he would buy gas on the return trip. He further testified no gas was purchased by plaintiff or defendant before the accident because the tank was partially full at the outset.
The jury were instructed as follows on the distinction between a 'passenger' and a 'guest' under California law:
'A guest is one who is invited, either expressly or impliedly, to enjoy the hospitality of the driver of a vehicle; who accepts such hospitality; and who takes a ride in such vehicle either for his own pleasure or on his own business, without making any return to, or conferring any benefit upon, the driver of the vehicle as compensation for the ride, other than the mere pleasure of the rider's company.
'Where, however, the driver receives some compensation, which is the chief inducement for the rider's transportation and which is understood by both to be, and is given and received, as compensation for the ride, such a rider is a passenger, not a guest.
2 (Italics added.)
The italicized portion of the instruction purports to advise the jury that if they find the purpose of a trip is the joint pleasure of the participants, the rider is a guest even though he contributes to the expenses of the trip and his contribution is the 'chief inducement for the rider's transportation.' Applied to the facts in the case before us, the jury were thus instructed to find that plaintiff was a guest if they believed defendant's testimony as to the social purpose of the trip, even if they also believed that plaintiff's promises to pay for gas, obtain lodging, and supply fishing equipment were the primary inducement to defendant to furnish the transportation. This lecture to the jury is in conflict with the law in California, and the giving of this instruction constitutes error which we find to be prejudicial and therefore reversible.
In Whitmore v. French (1951) 37 Cal.2d 744, 746, 235 P.2d 3, 5, we discussed the distinction between a guest and a passenger using language patently at odds with that of the above instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mittelman v. Seifert
...* which is a motivating influence for furnishing the (rider's) transportation' flowing to the pilot. (Nevarez v. Carrasco (1969) 1 Cal.3d 518, 522, 82 Cal.Rptr. 721, 723, 462 P.2d 577, 579.) But this was followed by an instruction which specified that 'a motivating influence' had to be 'a c......
-
Brown v. Merlo
...'car pool' arrangements (see, e.g., Bozanich v. Kenney (1970) 3 Cal.3d 567, 91 Cal.Rptr. 286, 477 P.2d 142; Nevarez v. Carrasco (1969) 1 Cal.3d 518, 82 Cal.Rptr. 721, 462 P.2d 577) or provide some marginal benefit to the driver (see, e.g., Kruzie v. Sanders (1943) 23 Cal.2d 237, 143 P.2d 70......
-
Magnandonovan v. City of Los Angeles, B192892 (Cal. App. 10/29/2008)
... ... (1974) 12 Cal.3d 663, 673 [stating general rule]; Gillespie v. Rawlings (1957) 49 Cal.2d 359, 368-369, disapproved on another point in Nevarez v. Carrasco (1969) 1 Cal.3d 518, 522, as explained in Bozanich v. Kenny (1970) 3 Cal.3d 567, 570-571 [evidence supported one of two theories that ... ...
-
Fernandez v. Kiesling
...latter phrase as the correct one. Bozanich v. Kenney, 3 Cal.3d 567, 91 Cal.Rptr. 286, 477 P.2d 142 (1970); Nevarez v. Carrasco, 1 Cal.3d 518, 82 Cal.Rptr. 721, 462 P.2d 577 (1969); Thompson v. Lacey, 42 Cal.2d 443, 267 P.2d 1 (1954); Brandis v. Goldanski, 117 Cal.App.2d 42, 255 P.2d 36 (195......