CULLIP V. DOMANN 972 P.2d 776 (1999) CASE BRIEF

CULLIP V. DOMANN

972 P.2d 776 (1999)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Cullip (P), a minor, sought review of a summary judgment to Domann (D), a child and his parents, in a personal injury negligence action.

FACTS: P, aged 14, and two friends the same age, Mercer (D) and Domann (D) went hunting. Mercer (D) did not know of the hunting plans until he arrived at P's house. Mercer (D) did not inform his parents of the plans. Mercer (D) had never gone hunting prior to the incident and had never completed a hunter safety course. Mercer (D) had 'no real experience' with weapons other than BB guns prior to the incident. The only training Mercer (D) received from his father regarding firearms was 'to not point guns at people and stuff like this.' Mercer (D) was aware that he was required to possess a hunter safety certificate in order to hunt on another person's property. Mercer (D) did give $5 to buy a box of .22 shells. Just before the accidental discharge of the weapon, P was climbing up a creek bank. Mercer (D) knew that Domann (D) was carrying the loaded shotgun in the immediate area but he was not paying attention. Mercer (D) gave no warning to P regarding Domann's (D) line of fire prior to the shooting. Mercer (D) did not know the meaning of 'line of fire.' The shotgun held by Domann (D) accidentally discharged, striking P and resulting in a paralyzing injury. P sued Ds and their parents. Domann (D) settled. Mercer (D) was granted summary judgment by the trial court. It held that Mercer's (D) parents owed no duty to P and that Mercer (D) breached no duty owed to P. P appealed.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner