Sidle v. Majors

• Decision Date: 16 February 1976
• Docket Number: 275S42,Nos. 475S96,s. 475S96
• Citation: 341 N.E.2d 763,264 Ind. 206
• Parties: Tracy SIDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. MAJORS, Defendant-Appellee. Joe DEMPSEY, Defendant-Appellant, v. Diana LEONHERDT (Green), Plaintiff-Appellee.
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

Page 763

341 N.E.2d 763

264 Ind. 206

Tracy SIDLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William C. MAJORS, Defendant-Appellee.

Joe DEMPSEY, Defendant-Appellant, v. Diana LEONHERDT (Green), Plaintiff-Appellee.

Nos. 475S96, 275S42.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

Feb. 16, 1976.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1976.

Ronald K. Gehring, Tourkow, Danehy, Crell, Hood & Gehring, Fort Wayne, Theodore Lockyear and Steven T. Barber, Evansville, Samuel J. Bernardi, Jr., John P. McQuillan, Valparaiso (Spangler, Jennings, Spangler & Dougherty, Valparaiso, of counsel), for appellants

Robert H. Hahn and George A. Porch, Rodney H. Grove, Evansville (Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald & Hahn, Evansville, of counsel), Stephen H. Meyer, Byron M. Chudom, Schererville (Chudom & Pressler, Schererville, of counsel), for appellees.

PRENTICE, Justice.

Plaintiff (Appellant) was injured while a guest passenger in an automobile operated by Defendant (Appellee). She filed a two-count complaint for damages in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, alleging 'negligence' in Count I and 'wanton and wilful misconduct' in Count II. The District Court sustained the defendant's motion for summary judgment on Count I, in view of the guest statute. Final judgment was entered against the plaintiff on that count.

On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Plaintiff has challenged the constitutionality of the Indiana Guest Statute, asserting that it violates Article 1, §§ 12 ¹ and 23 ² of the Indiana Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. ³

There being no precedents in the decisions of this Court upon such questions, the United States Court of Appeals has, pursuant to our Appellate Rule 15(N), certified the following questions to us and has requested our instructions thereon.

'1. Does the Indiana Guest Statute contravene Article 1, Section 12, of the Indiana Constitution?

'2. Does said Act contravene Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana Constitution?'

Plaintiff (Appellee) was a guest passenger in the automobile operated by the defendant (appellant) as a consequence of having accepted his social invitation. While so engaged, the parties were involved in a one-automobile accident, alleged by Plaintiff to have been proximately caused by the defendant's negligent and wilful and wanton operation of the vehicle. Prior to commencement of the trial, the trial court entered a ruling declaring the Indiana Guest Statute ⁴ unconstitutional as violative of the equal protection clauses of the United States and Indiana Constitutions. The plaintiff, however, attacks it upon other constitutional grounds as well, including the 'due course of law' provision of Article 1 § 12 of our state constitution.

STANDARD OF REVIEW AND BURDEN

In approaching a consideration of the constitutionality of a statute, we must at all times exercise self restraint. Otherwise, under the guise of limiting the Legislature to its constitutional bounds, we are likely to exceed our own. That we have the last word only renders such restraint the more compelling. We, therefore, remind ourselves that in our role as guardian of the constitution, we are nevertheless a court and not a 'supreme legislature.' We have no right to substitute our convictions as to the desirability or wisdom of legislation for those of our elected representatives. We are under a constitutional mandate to limit the General Assembly to its lawful territory of prohibiting legislation which, although enacted under the claim of a valid exercise of the police power, is unreasonable and oppressive. Nevertheless, we recognize that the Legislature is vested with a wide latitude of discretion in determining public policy. Therefore, every statute stands before us clothed with the presumption of constitutionality, and such presumption continues until clearly overcome by a showing to the contrary.

In the deliberative process, the burden is upon the challenger to overcome such presumption, and all doubts are resolved against his charge. The plaintiff, Leonherdt (Green), would avoid the application of the aforementioned standards and shift the burden that we believe is hers by charging that the right to bring an action for common law negligence is 'fundamental' and that the burden is therefore upon the proponent of constitutionality to show a compelling state interest justifying the legislative classification. We reject this proposition.

Both this Court and the United States Supreme Court have upheld the right of states to abolish or modify the common law. Liberty Warehouse Co. v. Burley Tobacco Growers' Co-Op. Marketing Association, (1928) 276 U.S. 71, 48 S.Ct. 291, 72 L.Ed. 473; Brooks v. Robinson, (1972) 259 Ind. 16, 284 N.E.2d 794; Bissell Carpet Sweeper Co. v. Shane Co., (1957) 237 Ind. 188, 143 N.E.2d 415. It is only required that the manner and effect of abolition not violate any relevant constitutional constraints. Chaffin v. Nicosia, (1974) 261 Ind. 698, 701, 310 N.E.2d 867, 869. Fundamental rights are those which have their origin in the express terms of the constitution or which are necessarily to be implied from those terms. San Antonio Indep. School Dist. v. Rodriquez, (1973) Within the context of these cases, at least, we see no differences in the equal protection provisions of the state and federal constitutions. Both are designed to prevent the distribution of extraordinary benefits or burdens to any group. However, the power to establish legislative classifications of persons has not been categorically denied but only severely limited. Rather, our courts have required only that such classifications meet certain tests. If neither a fundamental right nor a suspect classification is involved, the standard of review is that the classification not be arbitrary or unreasonable. Dandridge v. Williams, (1970) 397 U.S. 471, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 25 L.Ed.2d 491, and that a 'fair and substantial' relationship exist between the classification and the purpose of the legislation creating it. Johnson v. Robison, (1974) 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389; Reed v. Reed, (1971) 404 U.S. 71, 92 S.Ct. 251, 30 L.Ed.2d 225; Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, (1920) 253 U.S. 412, 40 S.Ct. 560, 64 L.Ed. 989. See also Gunther, The Supreme Court, 1971 Term, Forward: In Search of Evolving Doctrines of a Changing Court: A Model For a Newer Equal Protection, 86 Harv.L.Rev. 1 (1972).

411 U.S. 1, 93 S.Ct. 1278, 36 L.Ed.2d 16. The right asserted by the plaintiff is not such a right.

Our guest statute precludes a guest passenger from recovering damages for personal injuries sustained merely by the negligence of the owner or operator. Being inoperative as to passengers who were not guests, the statute creates two classifications of passengers--guests and non-guests, who are treated vastly differently under circumstances that the otherwise identical. The inequity is patent. The issues are whether or not the classification is reasonable and bears a fair and substantial relation to the legitimate purpose of the statute. The presumptions are that it is and does, and the burden is upon the plaintiff to show the contrary.

DEMPSEY V. LEONHERDT (GREEN)

We shall proceed to a consideration of Dempsey v. Green, and our determination thereof will control our response to the questions certified to us in Sidle v. Majors.

Approximately one-half of the United States enacted guest statutes similar to our own between the years 1927 and 1939. A number of such statutes have since been repealed, but it appears that at least 20 have not. At least 12 ⁵ of such statutes had their constitutionality promptly tested--predominately by a claim of equal protection denial. Except for Silver v. Silver, (1929) 280 U.S. 117, 50 S.Ct. 57, 74 L.Ed. 221, the only one of such cases to have been determined by the Supreme Court of the United States, those decisions are not binding upon this Court. They are, nevertheless, worthy of our careful analysis and consideration; and we are the incidental beneficiaries of the labors of highly qualified lawyers and judges who have extensively litigated questions which, although at a variance in some particulars, are essentially identical to the ones confronting us.

Silver v. Silver, supra, was limited to a single question of equal protection under the United States Constitution. The statute In determining if our statute bears a fair and substantial relationship to the purpose for which it was enacted, its purpose must first be ascertained. No purpose being expressed in the text of our statute and there being no legislative records from which it may be gleaned, we are required to make this determination from a consideration of what its effects are likely to be. If any logical purpose can be perceived, we are bound to test it, although this may require considerable speculation.

was upheld, with but little elaboration, as a permissible legislative strike at what the Legislature regarded as the evils of vexatious litigation arising out of the gratuitous carriage of passengers in automobiles. It was further said [264 Ind. 212] that the distinction drawn between passengers in automobiles and in other vehicles was not disabling, inasmuch as the Legislature could not be held rigidly to the choices of regulating all or none and that even though some abuses may not be hit, it was enough that the statute struck at the evil where it was felt and reached the class of cases where it most frequently occurred.

Purposes traditionally attributed to such statutes have been the fostering of hospitality by insulating generous drivers from lawsuits instituted by ungrateful guests and the elimination of possibility of collusive lawsuits. A number of other purposes have also been proffered by both proponents and opponents to the statutes, but we believe their existence to be unsupportable. We shall, therefore, proceed to a consideration of whether...