Druzanich v. Criley

Summary

The California Supreme Court held that an occupant who promised to share in driving had given compensation under Vehicle Code section 403 and therefore was a passenger rather than a noncompensating guest. The court also held that res ipsa loquitur applied and that the driver's explanation failed to rebut the resulting inference of negligence. The judgment for defendants was reversed.

Holdings

1. A promise by an occupant to share in driving, when transportation is conditioned on that promise, constitutes compensation for the ride within the meaning of section 403 of the Vehicle Code.
2. Res ipsa loquitur applies when the instrumentality causing the injury was in the defendant driver's exclusive control, the accident ordinarily would not occur if due care had been used, and the injury occurred without voluntary action by the plaintiff.
3. The res ipsa loquitur inference is evidence that the trier of fact may not arbitrarily disregard, and the driver's explanation did not rebut the inference of negligence as a matter of law.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the plaintiff's promise to share in driving constituted compensation under section 403 of the Vehicle Code, making him a passenger rather than a guest.
2. Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied to the automobile accident.
3. Whether the driver's evidence rebutted the inference of negligence created by res ipsa loquitur.

Disposition

reversed