## Facts

- DeWitt Vaught and Georgia Vaught sued Lucy Spence for injuries Georgia sustained while riding as Spence’s nonpaying guest passenger.
- Spence and Mrs. Vaught had attended church in Houston, Arkansas, though they lived in Perryville; Mrs. Vaught asked Spence (Mr. Vaught’s aunt) for a ride back.
- About two miles outside Houston, Spence’s automobile veered to the right, left the roadway, entered a ditch, and overturned, severely injuring Mrs. Vaught.
- The evidence indicated the accident occurred after a tire blew, but testimony conflicted about what happened before the vehicle left the road.
- Witnesses gave conflicting accounts about unusual noises or signs of tire trouble before the blowout, the speed Spence was driving, whether Mrs. Vaught warned Spence to slow down or stop, and whether physical evidence (including tire-rim marks) suggested continued driving after tire trouble became apparent.
- The Vaughts sought recovery under Arkansas’s guest statutes, which restrict a guest passenger’s recovery against the host driver to cases involving willful and wanton operation or willful misconduct.
- The case was tried to a jury, which returned a verdict for the Vaughts.
- Spence moved for a directed verdict at the close of the plaintiffs’ proof and again at the close of all the evidence, arguing the proof showed no willful and wanton misconduct; the trial court denied the motions and entered judgment on the verdict.
- Spence appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to submit willful and wanton misconduct to the jury.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly denied Spence’s motion for directed verdict because there was substantial evidence from which a jury could find willful and wanton operation or willful misconduct under Arkansas’s guest statutes.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
- The court held that, viewing the evidence most favorably to the Vaughts (as required on review of a denied directed-verdict motion), there was substantial evidence to submit to the jury the question whether Spence’s conduct met the guest-statute standard.
- Because the testimony and physical proof were conflicting on speed, warnings, and indications of tire trouble before the crash, the jury could resolve credibility and draw inferences supporting willful and wanton misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- Under Arkansas’s guest statutes, a nonpaying guest passenger has no cause of action for injuries from the operation of a vehicle unless the vehicle was operated “wilfully and wantonly … in disregard of the rights of others” or the injury was caused by the driver’s “wilful misconduct.”
- Ordinary negligence is insufficient for a guest passenger’s recovery; the plaintiff must prove conduct going beyond a mere failure to use reasonable care.
- On a motion for directed verdict, courts view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion; if fair-minded jurors could reach different conclusions, the case must go to the jury.
- Whether particular conduct amounts to willful and wanton operation under the guest statutes is generally a case-by-case question for the jury when the proof would support competing inferences, including when there is conflicting testimony about speed, warnings, and pre-accident driving behavior.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the plaintiffs’ guest-statute verdict because the record contained substantial, conflicting evidence from which a jury could find that Spence continued to drive in reckless disregard of her guest’s safety—despite signs of tire trouble and warnings—making a directed verdict improper.


Spence v. Vaught, 367 S.W.2d 238 (1963)