POPEJOY v. STEINLE Sup. Ct of Wyo, 820 P.2d 545 (1991). CASE BRIEF

POPEJOY V. STEINLE

Sup. Ct of Wyo, 820 P.2d 545 (1991).

NATURE OF THE CASE: Popejoy (P) sought review of the decision granting summary judgment to Steinle (Ds), personal representatives of deceased rancher's estate, as the court did not find a that a joint venture relationship existed between the husband and wife ranchers.

FACTS: Connie Steinle (D), accompanied by her seven-year-old daughter and a niece, left the family ranch to purchase a calf for the daughter to raise on the ranch. D's truck collided with a vehicle driven by P. D died as a result of the accident and P sustained injuries initially diagnosed as a muscle strain. P received outpatient medical treatment at a local hospital. One week after the accident William Steinle completed the calf purchase for his daughter. The calf was raised on the Steinle ranch and sold the following year. The daughter received the proceeds from the sale. Fifteen months after the accident P began experiencing severe pain in his neck and back. Because other treatments failed to correct the problem, he underwent two separate neurosurgeries to fuse cervical vertebrae. Following the second surgical procedure, P attempted unsuccessfully to reopen D's estate which had been probated and closed more than a year earlier. P then filed a creditor's claim against William's estate as he had died in the interim following D's death. P's creditor's claim was rejected. P claimed that William and D were engaged in a joint venture when D embarked on a 'business trip' to pick up the daughter's calf. The Estate filed a motion for summary judgment. The motion, was denied. The Estate moved to bifurcate the trial so that the issue of whether a joint venture relationship existed could be decided initially and separately from questions of negligence, liability and injury. The motion to bifurcate was granted and a trial date was set. The Estate then filed a second motion for summary judgment. It was granted by the trial court. After P's objection, the trial court reaffirmed its decision to grant summary judgment as a matter of law and because it found no genuine issues of material fact. 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