Cullip Ex Rel. Pitts v. Domann Ex Rel. Domann
1999 Kan. LEXIS 3, 266 Kan. 550, 972 P.2d 776 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A member of a recreational group is not liable for injuries caused by another member's negligence when the first member's own actions were not the proximate cause of the injury and they lacked control over the instrumentality that caused the harm. Additionally, parental liability does not attach when the child's conduct did not cause the harm.
Facts:
- David Cullip, Johnny Jack Mercer (J.J.), and William Domann, all 14 years old, went on a hunting trip together.
- The trip was Cullip's idea, and he provided the two rifles and one shotgun for the group.
- Cullip's mother gave the boys permission, provided a brief gun safety instruction, and drove them to the hunting location.
- J.J. had no prior hunting experience, had never completed a hunter safety course, and his only firearms training was a warning from his father not to point guns at people.
- J.J.'s father, Joe Mercer, knew his son lacked a hunter safety certificate but allowed J.J. to go hunting at his discretion.
- While Cullip was climbing a creek bank, a shotgun held by William Domann accidentally discharged, striking Cullip and causing permanent paralysis.
- J.J. was in the immediate area but was not paying attention to William and did not give Cullip any warning.
Procedural Posture:
- David Cullip sued multiple defendants, including Johnny Jack Mercer (J.J.) and his parents, Joe and LuElla Mercer, in the trial court.
- Cullip settled with or dismissed all defendants except for J.J. and his parents.
- The Mercers (defendants) filed a motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Mercers, finding they owed no duty to the plaintiff.
- Cullip (plaintiff-appellant) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment.
- The appeal was transferred to the Kansas Supreme Court for review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a member of a recreational hunting party liable for injuries to another member when the injuries were directly caused by a third member's accidental discharge of a firearm, and the defendant's only wrongful act was participating without a required hunter safety certificate?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, J.
No, a member of a recreational hunting party is not liable under these circumstances. The court rejected three primary theories of liability. First, J.J.'s violation of the hunter safety statute was not negligence per se because his failure to have a certificate was not the proximate cause of the injury; the direct and proximate cause was William's accidental discharge of the shotgun. Second, the hunting party did not constitute a joint venture, which requires a business purpose for profit, nor a joint enterprise, because the essential element of an equal right of control over the instrumentality causing the injury (William's shotgun) was absent. Third, J.J.'s parents, Joe and LuElla Mercer, were not liable because their duty to control their child applies only when the child's own conduct causes harm, which was not the case here, as William's conduct caused the injury.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the limits of vicarious liability within informal recreational groups. It establishes that participation alone does not create a mutual duty of care among members for all actions, distinguishing recreational 'joint enterprises' from formal business 'joint ventures.' The decision reinforces the strict requirement of proximate causation for negligence per se claims, meaning a statutory violation is irrelevant to liability unless it directly leads to the harm. By narrowly construing the joint enterprise doctrine to require actual control over the specific instrumentality of harm, the court protects individuals from being held responsible for the unpredictable negligence of their peers in shared activities.
