Oftentimes when people drive they do so with members of their immediate families. But when accidents happen involving a driver and passenger that are immediate family, can a driver still be held liable? The answer is yes, unless you live in one of a few states with a “guest statue,” a legal principle that was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court ruling in Indiana.
In the case decided in late July, the court ruled that a father who accidentally pinned his son up against another car while trying to park would not be protected by the state’s guest statute and could be held liable for his son’s injuries. But what exactly is a guest statute, and what does the ruling in this case mean for the citizens and auto insurance companies of Indiana?
Guest Statutes: a Breakdown
A guest statute is used to limit the liability of a driver in certain conditions. The Indiana guest statute specifically “prevents certain designated passengers from recovering damages for injuries resulting from the ordinary negligence” of the driver when the injured passenger “was ‘being transported without payment in or upon the motor vehicle,’” according to court documents. That means any immediate family member or hitchhiker whom the driver is transporting can’t successfully sue the driver if they’re injured in a crash.
According to “Understanding the Law” by Donald Carper and John McKinsey, guest statutes were common in most states at one point as a popular method of keeping abuse out of the system. Without them, injured family members involved in an accident could lie about their condition since, if a car insurance company overpays on a passenger’s claim, the family is benefiting from it. And, since most claims are paid by insurance companies, this could mean more payouts for the industry. But guest statutes currently remain active in only a small minority of states. A few of the remaining holdouts are Alabama, Ohio, and Indiana.
Clark Jr. & Clark v. Clark Sr.
It was the meaning of a section of the Indiana guest statute that was an issue in determining if the father in the Indiana Supreme Court case could be held liable. Specifically, it was the meaning of being transported “in or upon” a car.
The facts of the case are as follows. In September 2007, Clark Jr. was traveling as a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by his father, Robert Clark Sr. When they arrived at their destination the son exited the vehicle, walked several feet in front of it and motioned to his father to drive forward into a parking space. When Junior motioned for his father to stop, instead of hitting the brake, Senior hit the accelerator, causing Junior to be pinned between Senior’s vehicle and another. This caused significant leg injuries to Junior and led him and his wife, Debra, to file a lawsuit against Senior.
The defendant made a case that even though Junior was outside the car, he was still “in or upon” the car and thus could not make a claim.
The lower court agreed with this logic, but the Supreme Court justices did not. In their opinion, the court wrote that the language of the guest statute was unambiguous, saying that the guest statute does not apply if the victim was simply standing outside of the vehicle and was not being transported. In short, ruling for the son that he had a right to his claims.
Many would say that common sense won out in this case—if you aren’t in a car, you can’t be transported by it, and so the son had a right to damages by his father’s insurance. But since it took going to the Indiana Supreme Court and a reversal of a summary judgment, things are never clear cut.
A Lesson for Policyholders
So what does this mean for policyholders?
While the state Supreme Court case is particular to Indiana and applies to a very narrow spectrum of situations, the idea of a guest statue relates to other states as well, and is something that may be in yours.
If you live in a state with a guest statute and are transporting a family member, that family member may be out of luck and have to pay for their hospital bills if they get injured in an accident you cause. Because of that, it might be smart to add medical payments coverage to a policy, which will pay for the policyholder’s and his or her family’s medical bills that are the result of a crash.
