The Alabama Guest Passenger Statute (ALGP), Ala. Code §32-1-2 (1975), protects a driver from liability for negligence to passengers in his vehicle who meet the definition of a “guest.” The ALGP states:
The owner, operator, or person responsible for the operation of a motor vehicle shall not be liable for loss or damage arising from injuries to or death of a guest while being transported without payment therefor in or upon said motor vehicle, resulting from the operation thereof, unless such injuries or death are caused by the willful or wanton misconduct of such operator, owner or person responsible for the operation of said motor vehicle.
The application of the statute is highly factually dependent. Depending on the venue, judges may be hesitant to deny recovery under the ALGP and allow claims to go to a jury. As a result, the parameters of the application of the ALGP have come from numerous appellate court decisions over many years. It is important to analyze each ALGP claim in the context of the current state of the case law. Claims analysts should recognize that no single article or treatise can definitively indicate whether liability exists for a particular claim under the ALGP.
With that caveat, there are several factors to consider in determining whether the ALGP applies:
IS THE CLAIMANT A “GUEST?”
The primary consideration is whether the injured party meets the definition of a “guest.” The term is not defined in the statute but decades of case law have identified certain issues that frequently arise in determining whether a passenger is a guest. In reality, there is an infinite variety and combination of factors that indicate either a social or commercial relationship between the driver and passenger. Question to consider in determining whether one is a “guest” include:
Mutual Benefit Test – If the ride benefits both the driver and the passenger, then the passenger is likely not a guest and the statute would not apply.
The general rule is that if the transportation of a rider confers a benefit only on the person to whom the ride is given, and no benefits other than such as are incidental to hospitality, goodwill or the like, on the person furnishing the transportation, the rider is a guest; but if his carriage tends to promote the mutual interest of both himself and [the] driver for their common benefit, thus creating a joint business relationship between the motorist and his rider, or where the rider accompanies the driver at the instance of the latter for the purpose of having the rider render a benefit or service to the driver on a trip which is primarily for the attainment of some objective of the driver, the rider is a passenger and not a guest.'”
Cash v. Caldwell, 603 So. 2d 1001 (Ala. 1992) (quoting Hasbrook v. Wingate, 152 Ohio St. 50, 87 N.E.2d 87 (1949).
Payment for a Ride – The typical situation involving payment for a ride involves a taxi, bus, or ride-share services like Lyft or Uber. In that situation, the payment for the ride clearly confers a mutual benefit. This means the passenger is not a guest and can sue the driver for negligence. Occasional contribution to expenses such as gas nor not considered a mutual benefit. Klaber v. Elliott, 533 So. 2d 576 (Ala. 1988). The operative question is whether the payment is a “mere social courtesy” or something more. Thedford v. Payne, 813 So. 2d 905 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
Relationship between Passenger and Driver – A history of sharing rides and mutual contribution to expenses tends to indicate the passenger is a guest. Children certainly are less able to voluntarily consent to a ride and appreciate the inherent dangers involved. Walker v. Garris, 368 So. 2d 277 (Ala. 1979) held that the application of the ALGP to a person under the age of fourteen was a jury question. Express or implied misrepresentation as to the purpose of the ride can also invalidate the application of the ALGP, Crovo v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 336 So. 2d. 1083 (Ala. 1976). Also, protests from the passenger may also remove their assent to the ride thus invalidating the ALGP. Roe v. Lewis, 416 So. 2d 750 (Ala. 1982).
WAS THE DRIVER WANTON OR WILLFUL?
The other avenue claimants have to overcome the ALGP is to attack the liability of the driver. If the driver’s conduct was willful or wanton (and not just merely negligent), then the claimant can not only avoid the application of the ALGP and obtain compensatory damages for negligence, they can also access punitive damages against the driver. Punitive damages are frequently excluded from coverage on liability policies.
Whether a driver’s conduct is willful or wanton also is very factually dependent. Wanton conduct is defined as acting or failing to act, with knowledge or consciousness that the action or failure to act will likely or probably cause harm. With reckless indifference to the consequences, one either consciously or intentionally did some wrongful act or consciously omitted some known duty, which produced the injury.” 1 Alabama Tort Law § 3.01 (2021).