Cecil v. Hardin
575 S.W.2d 268, 1978 Tenn. LEXIS 690 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A passenger who has no ownership or control over a vehicle is not liable for the driver's negligence, even if the passenger participated in drinking with the driver, unless the passenger substantially assisted or encouraged the driver's tortious conduct or they were engaged in a business-related joint venture.
Facts:
- Joe David Edwards, age 20, and David Hardin, age 21, met at an acquaintance's apartment for a social gathering.
- While there, both men drank several beers, and Hardin also smoked marijuana.
- Unbeknownst to Hardin at the time, Edwards also took two pills of a controlled substance.
- The two left together in Edwards' car with plans to attend a party later that night.
- During the evening, they drove around, bought more beer which they both consumed, and Hardin took several methaqualine pills.
- By their own admission, both men were under the influence of alcohol and drugs.
- At approximately 1:00 a.m., Edwards, who was driving, struck and killed Marcus Cecil as Cecil rode his bicycle.
- Although they knew they had hit something, Edwards and Hardin did not stop to investigate or render aid.
Procedural Posture:
- The representatives of Marcus Cecil sued David Hardin and Joe David Edwards for wrongful death in a Tennessee trial court.
- The case was tried before a jury.
- At the close of all proof, the trial judge granted a directed verdict in favor of the passenger, David Hardin.
- The jury returned a verdict against the driver, Joe David Edwards, which was not appealed.
- Cecil's representatives, as appellants, appealed the directed verdict for Hardin to the Tennessee Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling in favor of Hardin.
- Cecil's representatives, as petitioners, were granted review by the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a passenger in a vehicle, who engaged in drinking with the driver but has no right to control the vehicle, share civil liability for a death caused by the driver's negligent operation of the vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cooper
No. A passenger is not liable for the negligence of the driver simply by virtue of being present in the vehicle. The court's reasoning focused on several distinct legal theories. First, a passenger has no independent duty to control the driver's operation of a vehicle unless they possess a legal right to do so, which Hardin did not. Second, the court declined to extend liability to a social host who provides alcohol, viewing such a significant departure from common law as a matter for the legislature. Third, the theory of joint venture did not apply because their association was purely for social pleasure, not for a business or expense-sharing purpose, and Hardin lacked an equal right to control the vehicle. Finally, for 'aiding and abetting' liability, the plaintiff must show the defendant gave 'substantial assistance or encouragement' to the tortfeasor's unlawful acts; Hardin's acquiescence to Edwards' driving and co-participation in drinking did not meet this high standard.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Henry
Yes. The dissent argued that Hardin should be held liable as a joint tortfeasor. It contended that Edwards and Hardin acted in concert, combining and confederating on an 'expedition of drinking, drugging and driving.' The dissent viewed the fact that Edwards was driving as a mere fortuity, irrelevant given their common purpose to engage in unlawful activities. It argued that the 'control' element required for a joint enterprise is inapplicable in a situation where the very absence of control caused the injury. The dissent would hold that when two people engage in an unlawful act together, they are both liable for any resulting harm, and Hardin's role as a planner and participant constituted 'substantial assistance or encouragement'.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the traditional common law distinction between moral culpability and legal duty, particularly regarding passenger liability and social host liability. The court clearly demarcates the line for imposing liability on a non-driving passenger, requiring a showing of either a legal right of control over the vehicle, a business-related joint venture, or 'substantial assistance and encouragement' in the wrongful act. By refusing to extend liability to those who provide alcohol in a social context, the court signals judicial restraint, deferring to the legislature for such a significant policy change. This decision sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to hold passengers liable, protecting casual social interactions from the broad net of tort liability.
Unlock the full brief for Cecil v. Hardin