Is a plaintiff entitled to claim damages from a negligent driver who causes injury to the owner of the vehicle?

[546 P.2d 1041] The statute challenged in the instant case is a most peculiar law. From the wide range of automobile accident victims, the statute singles out one very narrow class--automobile passengers who happen to own the car in which they are injured--and bars this, and only this, class of victims from obtaining recovery from drivers who negligently cause their injuries. As I shall explain, this unusual law, which, to my knowledge, has no counterpart in any other jurisdiction in the country, originated as an addition to California's automobile guest statute in response to conflicting judicial decisions on whether an 'owner-passenger' was a 'guest' within the meaning of the guest statute; in that context, the purpose of the statute was somewhat understandable, treating injured owner-passengers in the same manner as the bulk of nonowner-passengers injured during a 'social' ride. In Brown v. Merlo (1973) 8 Cal.3d 855, 106 Cal.Rptr. 388, 506 P.2d 212, however, this court held the basic automobile guest statute unconstitutional as a denial of the equal protection of the laws; in light of the demise of the underlying guest statute, the instant provision can no longer claim the justification of according injured owner-passengers the same treatment as most injured social guests. In terms of its original purpose, therefore, the statute's application has become entirely anomalous and irrational.