The opinion
CROCKETT, Justice
(concurring specially).
I am impelled to forswear joining in expatiation upon a case of a sister state, which we decline to follow anyway. In addition to not being binding on us in any event, it is decided against a background of law significantly different from our own, and it impresses me as mainly concerned with rationalizations toward a desired result of repudiating their statute.
Consequently, I desire to state briefly my own reasons for refusing to strike down our own:
(1) Our guest statute was enacted by the legislature advisedly, to alleviate actual abuses which had occurred, and were occurring. 1
*890 (2) Although it has not completely cured the ills it was aimed at, when properly applied, it has had the salutary effect of minimizing them.
(3) It has been in effect for over 40 years. 2
Inasmuch as it came into being as an expression of the will of the people through legislative enactment, if there is to be any such substantial and important change in the law it should be by that same process, and not by judicial pronouncement. 3
. See discussion of justification of this statute based on the use of automobiles as such an essential and important aspect of modern living that it is an appropriate subject for special classification and legislation thereon, and *890 the salutary purposes justifying the statute as set forth by Justice Worthen in Jensen v. Mower, 4 Utah 2d 336 , 294 P.2d 683 ; and see also Andrus v. Allred, 17 Utah 2d 106 , 404 P.2d 972 .
. Originally enacted in Chap. 52, S.L.U.1935.
. See statement Stanton v. Stanton, 30 Utah 2d 315 , 517 P.2d 1010 , and authorities therein cited.