Benjamin v. Rutherford

WOOD (Fred B.), J.

Plaintiff-appellant assigns as error the submission to the jury of the question whether plaintiff rode as a guest or as a passenger in a passenger car owned by her employer and driven by defendant, a fellow employee, at the time of the collision which caused her injuries. She claims that the evidence shows, as a matter of law, that she was riding as a passenger.

*

The applicable statute declares that

“No person who as a guest accepts a ride in any vehicle upon a highway without giving compensation for such ride . . .

has any right of action for civil damages against the driver of such vehicle . . . on account of personal injury to . . . such guest during such ride, unless the plaintiff in any such action establishes that such injury . . . proximately resulted from the intoxication or wilful misconduct of said driver.” (Veh. Code, §403; emphasis added.)

The parties are in substantial agreement as to the meaning of “compensation” as used in this statute. It may but need not be monetary in form. It may be a tangible benefit received by the person who furnishes the ride, a benefit which is a motivating influence for supplying the transportation. (See

Martinez

v.

Southern Pac. Co.,

45 Cal.2d 244, 250-253 [288 P.2d 868] ; also

McCann

v.

Hoffman,

9 Cal.2d 279, 283-287 [70 P.2d 909]. Each reviews the case law.)

A rider claiming the status of passenger, when this statute is involved, has the burden of proving that he was a passenger; i. e., that he gave compensation for the ride.

(Martinez

v.

Southern Pac. Co., supra,

45 Cal.2d 244, 250.)

The determination of that question is one of fact unless the evidence admits of but a single inference; in this ease, an inference that plaintiff gave compensation for the ride.

†