For the same reason, some states also passed aviation guest statutes, which limit the liability of non-commercial airplane passengers.
In 1917, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decided that "unpaid drivers, analogized to gratuitous bailees, should not be held liable to their guests for automobile accidents in the absence of gross negligence.
[3] Oregon maintains a guest statute applicable to non-paying passengers in aircraft or watercraft limiting claims for injury, death or loss in case of an accident, unless the accident was intentional on the part of the owner or operator or caused by the gross negligence or intoxication of the owner or operator.
Judicial decisions regarding spouses' ability to sue one another for tortious acts contained similar policy concerns to those underlying the adoption of guest statutes.
[1] Scholars point to the rise of guest statutes and their treatment by courts in the interspousal liability context as evidence that denying spouses the ability to sue each other was not the result of patriarchal restriction, but was truly motivated by worries surrounding insurance fraud.