California Codes
Cal. Vehicle Code § 17158 (2026)
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov
JustiaCode on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
No person riding in or occupying a vehicle owned by him and driven by another person with his permission has any right of action for civil damages against the driver of the vehicle or against any other person legally liable for the conduct of the driver on account of personal injury to or the death of the owner during the ride, unless the plaintiff in any such action establishes that the injury or death proximately resulted from the intoxication or willful misconduct of the driver.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1960–2024 · leading case: Horwich v. Superior Court, 980 P.2d 927 (Cal. 1999).
Horwich v. Superior Court, 980 P.2d 927 (Cal. 1999). “) The reviewing court initially recognized that "Vehicle Code section 17158 is in derogation of the common law and must be strictly construed.”
Malan v. Lewis, 693 P.2d 661 (Utah 1984). “1983); Note, The Present Status of Automobile Guest Statutes, 59 Cornell L.”
Calvillo-Silva v. Home Grocery, 968 P.2d 65 (Cal. 1998). “It provided, in effect, that no person who rode in a vehicle owned by that person and driven by another with permission and no person who accepted a ride as a guest without giving compensation had any right of action for civil damages against the driver of the vehicle on account…”
Cooper v. Bray, 582 P.2d 604 (Cal. 1978). “[3] "Vehicle Code section 17158, as amended in 1961, read in full: `No person riding in or occupying a vehicle owned by him and driven by another person with his permission and no person who as a guest accepts a ride in any vehicle upon a highway without giving compensation for…”
Gibson v. Gibson, 479 P.2d 648 (Cal. 1971). “[9] The Legislature has acted to bar suits in one situation where the danger of fraud and collusion was thought to be great an action by an automobile guest against his host for simple negligence (Veh. Code, § 17158). (See Klein v. Klein, supra, 58 Cal.”
Schwalbe v. Jones, 546 P.2d 1033 (Cal. 1976). “158, as amended in 1961, read in full: " No person riding in or occupying a vehicle owned by him and driven by another person with his permission and no person who as a guest accepts a ride in any vehicle upon a highway without giving compensation for such ride, nor any other…”
Brown v. Merlo, 506 P.2d 212 (Cal. 1973). “has any right of action for civil damages against the driver of the vehicle or against any other person legally liable for the conduct of the driver on account of personal injury to or the death of the .”
Slater v. Blackwood, 543 P.2d 593 (Cal. 1975). “In March 1970 she filed an action for damages, the complaint being framed in Contemplation of the provisions of California’s then existing “guest statute” (Veh. Code, § 17158), which limited recoveiy to death or injuries resulting from intoxication or wilful misconduct.”
Callahan v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 249 Cal. App. 2d 696 (Cal. Ct. App. 1967). “(Veh. Code, § 17158.) The allegation of wilful misconduct under the guest law is but an allegation of a conclusion.”
Traxler v. Thompson, 4 Cal. App. 3d 278 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). ““Wilful misconduct” under the “Guest Statute” (Veh. Code, § 17158) is intentionally doing or failing to do something in the operation of a motor vehicle which should or should not be done, with express or implied knowledge that an injury to a guest will be a probable result.”
Hart v. Wielt, 4 Cal. App. 3d 224 (Cal. Ct. App. 1970). “(Veh. Code, § 17158.) There were no special verdicts.”
Chabot v. Meredith, 15 Cal. App. 3d 950 (Cal. Ct. App. 1971). “[2] Vehicle Code section 17158. In Morrison v.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.