Tubbs v. Argus
140 Ind. App. 695, 225 N.E.2d 841, 33 A.L.R. 3d 295 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A motor vehicle operator has an affirmative common law duty to render reasonable aid to a guest passenger injured in an accident involving the operator's vehicle. A state's guest statute, which limits liability for injuries 'resulting from the operation' of a vehicle, does not bar a claim for additional injuries caused by a breach of this separate, post-accident duty to render aid.
Facts:
- On January 28, 1959, Appellant was a guest passenger in a vehicle owned and operated by Appellee in Indianapolis, Indiana.
- While traveling, Appellee drove the automobile over a curb and into a tree.
- The collision caused initial injuries to Appellant.
- Following the collision, Appellee abandoned the vehicle without rendering any aid or assistance to the injured Appellant.
- As a result of Appellee's failure to render aid, Appellant suffered additional, aggravated injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellant filed a Second Amended Complaint against Appellee in the trial court, seeking damages only for the additional injuries sustained due to Appellee's failure to render aid.
- Appellee filed a demurrer, arguing that the Guest Statute barred the negligence claim.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer to Appellant's complaint.
- When Appellant refused to plead over, the trial court entered a final judgment against Appellant.
- Appellant appealed the judgment to the Appellate Court of Indiana.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Indiana's Guest Statute, which limits a driver's liability for injuries to a guest 'resulting from the operation' of a vehicle to instances of wanton or wilful misconduct, also bar a claim for additional injuries caused by the driver's negligent failure to render aid after the initial crash?
Opinions:
Majority - Pfaff, P. J.
No. The Indiana Guest Statute does not bar a claim for additional injuries caused by the driver's negligent failure to render aid after a crash. The court reasoned that the statute's protection only applies to injuries 'resulting from the operation' of the motor vehicle. The additional injuries claimed by the appellant did not arise from the vehicle's operation, but from the driver's subsequent failure to act after the operation had ceased. While common law generally imposes no duty to aid a person in peril, an exception arises when one's conduct, even if innocent, causes bodily harm to another, rendering them helpless. Citing L. S. Ayres & Company v. Hicks and the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 322, the court found that because the Appellee's instrumentality (the car) caused Appellant's initial injury and helplessness, the Appellee had an affirmative duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent further harm.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the broad liability shield provided by automotive guest statutes. It establishes that a driver's legal duty to a passenger is not extinguished at the moment a crash occurs. By separating the 'operation' of the vehicle from the post-accident conduct of the driver, the court imposes a common law duty to render aid that exists independently of the statute. This case solidifies the tort principle that one who creates a dangerous situation, even non-negligently, has an affirmative duty to prevent further harm to those they have imperiled.
