Quicksall v. Levy
Before: Brown (Gerald)
BROWN (Gerald), J.
The only issue presented to us on appeal concerns claimed error of the trial court in the content of an instruction given to the jury on the guest versus passenger relationship, and in refusing an instruction submitted by the appellant upon this subject.
Quicksall was injured in a one-car accident while riding in a car owned and driven by Rueben Levy. The two men were returning from a dove hunt in the Imperial Valley; they had been hunting and fishing companions for almost 40 years; since 1944 they had hunted deer and elk almost every year in California, Idaho and Utah. Their last fishing trip was a week-long trip to the High Sierras about six weeks before the accident; they were accompanied by at least two other fishermen and used Quicksall’s station wagon as was customary on long trips. On these long trips, money was usually put into a “pot” and expenses paid therefrom.
Quicksall and Levy had made short trips to the Imperial Valley for dove at least twice a year for the previous eight years. On these short trips, it was customary to alternate automobiles. The driver would start with a full tank of gas, and often eat breakfast at the house of one of the other hunters. Meals of the driver, gas, if required, and other like expenses were paid by the other hunters.
All birds or animals killed were always divided equally among all hunters. The large game was cut up and the pieces divided among all hunters, including those who shot no game, each sharing good meat as well as meat which was damaged by the kill.
On the trip that resulted in Quicksall’s injury and Levy’s death, Levy was driving his car, since Quicksall had taken his station wagon on the fishing trip to the High Sierras.
[601]
The following is a portion of an instruction given to the jury and repeated when they returned with a specific question on the guest versus passenger relationship:
“Where, however, the driver receives a tangible benefit, monetary or otherwise, which is
a
motivating influence for furnishing the rider’s transportation, the rider is a passenger, not a guest.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)