Plaintiff, a passenger, and defendant's decedent, the driver on the day in question, were two of six members of a carpool, each of whom drove every six.th day from the town where they all lived to the place of their common employment, thereby effecting a saving to each of approximately five dollars per week. As a result of a collision due to ordinary negligence of the driver, plaintiff was injured and sued for damages, alleging that he was not a guest passenger. The court submitted to the jury the question of whether plaintiff was a passenger for hire or a guest. On appeal from a verdict for plaintiff, held, affirmed. There was sufficient evidence to submit to the jury the question of whether the main purpose of the carpool was financial. Since payment for transportation does not necessarily require a money consideration, jury could properly determine that the benefit accruing to each member of the pool was the right to demand a corresponding service from· other members of the pool. Collins v. Rydman, 344 Mich. 588, 74 N.W. (2d) 900 (1956).
Ross Kipka S.Ed.,
Torts - Guest Statute - Carpools,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol55/iss3/12