Marcus v. Staubs
736 S.E.2d 360 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Summary judgment on the issue of liability is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist concerning a defendant's conduct, knowledge, and the foreseeability of harm, as these are questions for the finder of fact.
Facts:
- On December 9, 2006, Jonathan "Ray" Marcus, age 18, gave a ride to 14-year-old Samantha Staubs and 15-year-old Kelly Mazur in his truck, accompanied by his 26-year-old friend, Steven Woodward.
- Marcus drove the group to a convenience store where Woodward went inside and purchased four 40-ounce containers of "Hurricane" brand malt liquor.
- Testimony regarding Marcus's involvement in the alcohol purchase was contradictory: Woodward claimed Marcus asked him to buy alcohol for the girls, while Kelly and Marcus stated Marcus was not involved in the conversation.
- After the purchase, Marcus drove the girls to a location to meet up with 13-year-old Jessica Staubs and 14-year-old Misty Johnson for a party.
- There was conflicting testimony about how the girls obtained the alcohol; Marcus and Woodward claimed the girls stole it from Woodward, while the girls claimed Woodward gave it to them.
- The girls consumed the malt liquor, along with other alcohol, at a friend's house.
- After being told they had to leave the house, Misty Johnson and Samantha Staubs stole a neighbor's truck.
- While driving intoxicated and without a license, Misty Johnson crashed the truck, resulting in Samantha Staubs' death and serious injury to Jessica Staubs.
Procedural Posture:
- Lori Ann Staubs filed a civil complaint against Jonathan 'Ray' Marcus and others in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, the trial court of first instance.
- A default judgment was entered against Marcus.
- Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company appeared on behalf of Marcus and entered into an agreement with Staubs to set aside the default judgment.
- Despite an agreement contemplating a trial on liability, Marcus filed a motion for summary judgment.
- Staubs filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
- The trial court denied Marcus's motion and granted Staubs's motion, finding Marcus liable as a matter of law.
- Marcus, as petitioner, appealed the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.
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 summary judgment on the issue of liability appropriate in a negligence action where genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the defendant's role in procuring alcohol for minors and the foreseeability of the subsequent criminal acts and resulting injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - PER CURIAM
No. The trial court's entry of summary judgment was erroneous because disputed issues of material fact pervade this matter. The court improperly weighed evidence and resolved factual conflicts that should have been decided by a jury. Key disputed facts include whether Marcus knew about or participated in procuring alcohol for the minors and whether the subsequent events, including the car theft and fatal crash, were reasonably foreseeable consequences of his actions. While the existence of a legal duty is a question of law for the court, the determination of foreseeability and proximate cause involves factual inquiries that are within the province of the jury when the evidence is conflicting. The court also held that the social host liability doctrine did not apply because the alcohol was not furnished gratuitously in a social setting.
Concurring - Benjamin, J.
No. While concurring with the majority's result to reverse summary judgment and remand for trial, this opinion expresses concern that the majority's opinion rose to the level of an advisory opinion. The concurring justice argued that the majority went beyond what was necessary by setting forth a potential course for finding the petitioner liable, thereby unnecessarily prejudging issues of foreseeability and intervening causation before the facts could be properly developed at trial. The opinion should have been limited to reversing based on the existence of disputed material facts.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental principle that summary judgment is not a substitute for trial when material facts are in dispute. The court clarified the distinct roles of judge and jury in negligence cases: the judge determines the existence of a duty as a matter of law, but the jury resolves disputed facts concerning foreseeability, breach, and causation. The case serves as a strong caution to trial courts against weighing evidence or resolving factual credibility at the summary judgment stage, even when both parties move for it and assert that no facts are in dispute. The ruling solidifies the precedent that foreseeability, when fact-dependent, is a question for the jury, particularly in cases involving intervening criminal acts.
