Tubbs v. Argus

Indiana Court of Appeals · Torts

TortsDuty to aidGuest statuteAggravation of injuriesaffirmative duty to aidcommon law dutyguest statuteoperation of motor vehicle

Facts

The appellant was riding as a guest passenger in the appellee's car when, at about noon on January 28, 1959, the car was driven over the south curb of West Hampton Drive in Indianapolis and into a tree. The collision injured the appellant. After the crash, the appellee abandoned the automobile and did not render reasonable aid and assistance to the appellant. The appellant sought recovery only for additional injuries allegedly caused by that failure to aid, not for the initial crash injuries.

Issue

Does a guest passenger state a cause of action against the driver for additional injuries allegedly caused by the driver's failure to render reasonable aid and assistance after an automobile collision, notwithstanding Indiana's guest statute? More specifically, did the appellee owe a common law duty to aid the appellant after the operation of the vehicle had ceased?

Rule

Indiana's guest statute limits liability only for injuries resulting from the operation of the motor vehicle. Separately, although there is generally no duty to aid a person in peril, an affirmative duty arises to render reasonable aid and assistance to one who is helpless and in peril when the injury resulted from use of an instrumentality under the defendant's control; breach of that duty makes the defendant liable for additional injuries caused by the failure to aid.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Fort Wayne, Noah Mercer was driving his friend Elena Park home after dinner without charging her anything. Noah negligently slid his car into a utility pole, and Elena survived the impact but was pinned in the passenger seat on a deserted road; Noah walked to a nearby apartment complex and went to sleep without calling for help, and Elena later suffered severe hypothermia before another driver found her.

If Elena sues Noah only for the hypothermia suffered after the crash, what is the strongest argument that her negligence claim is not barred by Indiana's guest statute?

Explanation. The majority read the guest statute literally: it limits liability only for injuries resulting from the operation of the motor vehicle. A claim seeking recovery only for additional injuries caused by the driver's later failure to render reasonable aid falls outside the statute because those injuries arise after operation has ceased. The other choices add limitations not recognized by the opinion.