PIPHER V. PARSELL 930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007) CASE BRIEF

PIPHER V. PARSELL

930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Pipher (P), appeals from a judgment as a matter of law in favor of Parsell (D) where the court held that as a matter of law, D was not negligent.

FACTS: P, D, and Beisel were traveling south in D's pickup truck. All three were sitting on the front seat. D was driving, P was sitting in the middle, and Beisel was in the passenger seat next to the door. They were all sixteen-years-old at the time. While traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly 'grabbed the steering wheel causing the truck to veer off onto the shoulder of the road.' D was shocked but did nothing in response to Beisel's initial action. Approximately thirty seconds later, Beisel again yanked the steering wheel, causing D's truck to leave the roadway, slide down an embankment and strike a tree. P was injured as a result of the collision. According to P, despite the dangerous nature of the conduct, D and Beisel just laughed about it like it was a joke. D acknowledged, he could have admonished Beisel not to touch the steering wheel again and that he could have pulled over to the side of the road and required Beisel to get into the back seat or have warned Beisel that he would put her out of the vehicle. P sued Ds for negligence and the trial judge concluded that, as a matter of law, D had no duty to do anything after Beisel yanked the wheel the first time because it would be reasonable for the driver to assume that it would not happen again. The trial judge ruled that (1) there was no negligence in failing to discharge the dangerous passenger and (2) that failing to admonish the dangerous passenger was not negligence and could not be considered a proximate cause of P's injuries.

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