{ "id": 1730548, "name": "Buffington v. Wright", "name_abbreviation": "Buffington v. Wright", "decision_date": "1965-03-08", "docket_number": "5-3473", "first_page": "138", "last_page": "141", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "239 Ark. 138" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "388 S.W.2d 100" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "236 Ark. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1681269 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/236/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 S. W. 2d 1043", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 Ark. 1132", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727059 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/186/1132-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 Ark. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1642626 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/225/0309-01" ] }, { "cite": "226 Ark. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717358 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/226/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "232 Ark. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1694131 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/232/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S. W. 2d 30", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 Ark. 216", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8719506 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/195/0216-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 411, "char_count": 5310, "ocr_confidence": 0.509, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.091898031546571e-07, "percentile": 0.565826038506492 }, "sha256": "4288b56ffd554fddef95ed9f7e5baa9d1e69b2bb0f15347308920d0a682b7643", "simhash": "1:d5c5818f3979dcfb", "word_count": 890 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:14.179779+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Harris, O. J., dissents." ], "parties": [ "Buffington v. Wright." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice.\nThis is an action for personal injuries sustained by three passengers in a car that overturned.\nThe Corning Business and Professional Women\u2019s Club had entered a team in the Women\u2019s International Bowling Tournament at Memphis on April 14 and 15, 1963. There were vacancies on the club team when tournament time approached and appellants Carolyn Buffington and Rebecca Waldon Dortch of Corning and Mary Jane Riley of Paragould, who were not club members, were recruited to fill the complement of the club team for the tournament. The club president, Mrs. R. O. Smith, wms the team captain and appellee Notra Wright was a team member. Mrs. Smith drove to Memphis for the tournament and picked up appellant Riley on the way. Appellants Buffington and Dortch were two of appellee\u2019s passengers to Memphis. Mrs. Smith, the team captain, paid the team\u2019s expenses at Memphis including a meal, lodging, entry fees, a team photograph, team shirts, and bought gasoline for appellee\u2019s return trip to Corning. After the tournament on April 15th, all the appellants and another team member were to be driven home by appellee, at the behest of Mrs. Smith, who planned to remain in Memphis another night.\nThe parties had an anxious drive through Memphis, according to appellants\u2019 testimony, including misdirections, wrong lanes and courteous drivers who yielded at the last moment, appellants each eagerly offering to drive in appellee\u2019s place. After leaving Memphis the drive was uneventful until appellee passed a tractor-trailer near Gilmore. As appellee Avas pulling back into the right lane after passing the vehicle, she lost control of the car, Avent off the road to the left and turned over, resulting in injuries to the passengers including appellants.\nAppellants filed suit in the Western District of Clay Circuit Court on January 23, 1964, against appellee for their injuries and other damages. The cause came on for trial on April 6, 1964. At the close of appellants\u2019 case the trial court granted appellee\u2019s motion for a directed verdict on the ground that appellants were guests in appellee\u2019s vehicle. From judgment dismissing the complaint, appellants have prosecuted this appeal.\nThe question here is whether there has been sufficient evidence presented to make appellants\u2019 status as guests a matter for jury determination.\nWe are dealing here with the so-called guest statutes, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 75-913 \u2014 75-915 (Repl. 1957), which prohibit a guest from suing the owner or operator of a motor vehicle unless there was willful misconduct or willful and wanton operation of the vehicle. \u00a7 75-914 defines the term \u201cguest\u201d to \u201cmean self-invited guest or guest at sufferance.\u2019'\u2019\nThis court has quoted or cited with approval on several occasions, inter alia, Ward v. George, 195 Ark. 216, 112 S. W. 2d 30; Simms v. Tingle, 232 Ark. 239, 335 S. W. 2d 449; Whittecar v. Cheatham, 226 Ark. 31, 287 S. W. 2d 578; Blashfield\u2019s summary of the law on geusts as follows:\n\u201cOne important element in determining whether a person is a guest within the meaning and limitations of such statutes is the identity of the person or persons advantaged by the carriage. If, in its direct operation, it confers a benefit only on the person to whom the ride is given, and no benefits, other than such as are incidental to hospitality, companionship, or the like, upon the person extending the invitation, the passenger is a guest within the statutes; but, if his carriage tends to the promotion of mutual interests of both himself and the driver and operator for their common benefit, or if it is primarily for the attainment of such objective or purpose of the operator, he is not a guest within the meaning of such enactments. Of course, a passenger for hire is not within their operation, regardless of whether the passenger or some one else pays or promises to pay for the transportation.\u201d Blashfield, Cyclopedia of, Automobile Law and Practice, \u00a7 2292.\nOrdinarily the issue of whether one is a guest is a question of fact. Brand v. Rorke, 225 Ark. 309, 280 S. W. 2d 906. \u201cViewed in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is [to be] directed, ... if there is any conflict in the evidence, or . . . the evidence is not in dispute but is in such a state that fair-minded men might draw different conclusions therefrom, it is error to directa verdict.\u201d Smith v. McEachin, 186 Ark. 1132, 57 S. W. 2d 1043; Spence v. Vaught, 236 Ark. 509, 367 S. W. 2d 238. Review of the record in the case at bar reveals the testimony of appellants about their recruitment for the club\u2019s tournament team and the trip to Memphis to promote that end, together with the payment of appellee\u2019s gasoline by the team captain, fair-minded men could easily as not conclude the carriage tended to promote the mutual interests of both the passenger and the operator for their common benefit, as well as that payment for the transportation. The state of the record being thus, the trial court erred in directing a verdict at the close of appellants\u2019 case.\nReversed and remanded for new trial.\nHarris, O. J., dissents.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Trantham S Knaxvts, for appellant.", "Frierson, Walker $ Snellgrove, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Buffington v. Wright.\n5-3473\n388 S. W. 2d 100\nOpinion delivered March 8, 1965.\n[Rehearing denied April 12,1965.]\nTrantham S Knaxvts, for appellant.\nFrierson, Walker $ Snellgrove, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0138-01", "first_page_order": 166, "last_page_order": 169 }