Pipher v. Parsell
930 A.2d 890 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a driver is on notice of a passenger's dangerous conduct that interferes with the safe operation of the vehicle, the driver has a duty to take reasonable steps to protect other passengers from that foreseeable harm.
Facts:
- Kristyn Pipher, Johnathan Parsell, and Johnene Beisel, all sixteen years old, were driving in Parsell's pickup truck.
- Parsell was driving, Pipher was seated in the middle, and Beisel was in the front passenger seat.
- While traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the truck to swerve onto the shoulder of the road.
- Parsell regained control of the truck but took no action in response to Beisel's conduct.
- Parsell and Beisel laughed about the incident.
- Approximately thirty seconds later, Beisel again grabbed the steering wheel.
- The truck left the roadway, crashed into a tree, and caused Pipher to sustain injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Kristyn Pipher sued Johnathan Parsell for negligence in the Delaware Superior Court (trial court).
- At trial, after the presentation of evidence, the trial judge granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of Parsell.
- The trial judge ruled that Parsell had no legal duty to act after the passenger's first action and therefore was not negligent.
- Pipher, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Delaware.
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 driver breach the duty of care owed to a passenger by failing to take any preventative measures after another passenger engages in a dangerous act, such as grabbing the steering wheel, making a repeat of that act foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Holland, J.
Yes. A driver breaches the duty of care owed to a passenger by failing to take preventative measures after another passenger's initial dangerous act makes a recurrence of that act foreseeable. While a driver is generally not liable for the unforeseeable actions of a passenger, Beisel's first act of grabbing the steering wheel put Parsell on notice of a dangerous situation. This initial act made the subsequent act foreseeable. Once the risk of a passenger interfering with the vehicle's operation becomes foreseeable, the driver has a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect passengers from that harm. Parsell could have taken several reasonable steps, such as admonishing Beisel or pulling over. Because Parsell failed to do anything, a reasonable jury could find that he breached his duty to Pipher. Therefore, the questions of foreseeability, breach of duty, and proximate cause are factual determinations that must be decided by a jury, not by a judge as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the scope of a driver's duty of care, extending it to the foreseeable misconduct of passengers. The decision establishes that a passenger's initial dangerous act serves as notice, making subsequent similar acts legally foreseeable. This prevents a driver from claiming that a second, identical dangerous act was an unforeseeable, superseding cause. Consequently, the ruling makes it more difficult for trial judges to dismiss negligence claims against drivers in such situations, emphasizing that foreseeability is a question of fact for the jury to resolve.
Unlock the full brief for Pipher v. Parsell