concurring specially and in the judgment.
I concur in the judgment only. In my opinion, whether a severely intoxicated, angry, verbally abusive individual might act in an irrational manner, as did Tony Mobley on the night of the collision, might ordinarily be an issue of fact. In this circumstance, however, even assuming that the driver had knowledge that Mobley might act in an irrational dangerous manner, Bloodworth should not recover. He testified by affidavit that Mobley was drinking and had a “big bottle of liquor” that Bloodworth believed to be gin; that Mobley was “stumbling, staggering, and shouting” and was- “acting mad”; and that Mobley was cursing, shouting, and was being very loud and aggressive prior to entering the front seat of the car driven by Sharon Mobley. Bloodworth clearly possessed as much knowledge as did the driver or anyone else of Mobley’s condition, yet he chose to ride in the car as well. To that extent, Bloodworth assumed the risk of riding in the car with an obviously intoxicated, irrational individual, who was a front seat passenger. Bloodworth cannot recover.
*144Miller & Towson, Wallace Miller III, John D. Raines III, for appellees.