Opinion
No. 70-348 (Supreme Court No. 23485)
Decided December 1, 1970.
During journey in which host-guest relationship existed, plaintiff was injured when, during brief rest stop, car rolled after plaintiff had placed both feet on ground as she attempted to alight from the vehicle. From directed verdict for defendants plaintiff appealed. Affirmed
1. AUTOMOBILES — Guest Statute — Protects Host — Getting Into — Out of — Vehicle — Beginning — During — End — Ride. The Guest Statute, C.R.S. 1963, 13-9-1, extends to protect the host during the time when the guest is getting into the vehicle at the beginning of the ride and getting out of the vehicle, whether it be at the completion of the ride or during any temporary interruption thereof.
Error to the District Court of Boulder County, Honorable William E. Buck, Judge.
Martin, Brotzman, Caplan Knapple, James G. Martin, for plaintiff in error.
Robinson and Henderson, Jack D. Henderson, for defendants in error.
This case was originally filed in the Supreme Court of the State of Colorado and was subsequently transferred to the Court of Appeals under the authority vested in the Supreme Court.
The parties appear here in the same order as they appeared in the trial court and will be referred to as plaintiff and defendants or by name.
Plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for injuries she sustained in an accident allegedly caused by defendants negligence.
Trial was to a jury. At the conclusion of the plaintiff's evidence, the defendants moved for a directed verdict on the grounds that there was no evidence of gross negligence, and that the Colorado Guest Statute applied and constituted a bar to recovery. The trial court granted the motion and plaintiff seeks reversal.
The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff lived in Fort Collins and had been visiting the defendants at their home in Lakewood for two days. On the day plaintiff was injured, the parties were on a journey in defendants' car returning to Fort Collins. The purpose of the trip was to take the plaintiff back to her home. The defendant Ken Braden was driving with his wife sitting next to him and plaintiff was sitting on the right side of Mrs. Braden. The parties stopped at "Glacier Point" intending to view the sights for a few minutes and then continue their journey to Fort Collins. The car was parked on an incline with the front end slightly higher than the rear. The defendants got out of the car on the driver's side and plaintiff began to alight from the car on the passenger's side. She placed her feet on the ground and was holding on to the door when the car began rolling backwards. She was knocked down and injured.
The trial court did not err in holding that the Colorado Guest Statute barred recovery by plaintiff and the judgment is affirmed.
The pertinent part of the Colorado Guest Statute C.R.S. 1963, 13-9-1 provides:
"No person transported by the owner or operator of a motor vehicle as his guest, * * * shall have a cause of action for damages against such owner or operator for injury. * * *"
Plaintiff's principal argument is that she was not a guest as defined by the Colorado Guest Statute because she was not being "transported" at the time she was injured since the car was stopped and both of her feet were on the ground.
Plaintiff's argument has been presented to courts in other jurisdictions. These courts have reached different results in considering cases involving the liability of a motor vehicle driver or owner for running over or hitting a former passenger or guest who has alighted. See Annot., 50 A.L.R.2d 974. Some courts have applied the guest statute of their state in such situations while others have not.
In our opinion those authorities which give effect to the legislative intent of the statute by holding that the owner or driver must be protected at all times while the relation of host-guest exists in connection with the ride are the better reasoned decisions.
[1] A sensible and realistic application of this statute, in conformity with its purpose, requires that the protection extend to getting into the car at the beginning of the ride and getting out of the car whether it be at the completion of the ride or during any temporary interruption of the ride. Applying this rule to the present case, the plaintiff, although in the process of alighting from the car, was still within the purview of the statute.
Judgment affirmed.
JUDGE ENOCH and JUDGE PIERCE concur.