Popejoy v. Steinle
820 P.2d 545 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a joint venture for the purpose of imputing vicarious liability, the parties must share a community of pecuniary interest in the specific activity giving rise to the alleged negligence. An act of familial generosity, such as purchasing an asset as a gift for a child who will be the sole recipient of any profits, lacks the requisite commercial or profit-seeking motive to create such an interest.
Facts:
- Connie Steinle and her husband, William Steinle, operated a family ranch.
- On May 8, 1986, Connie Steinle was driving to Douglas, Wyoming, to purchase a calf for their seven-year-old daughter to raise on the ranch.
- During the trip, Connie Steinle's truck collided with a vehicle driven by Ronald Popejoy, resulting in Connie's death and Ronald's injuries.
- One week after the accident, William Steinle completed the purchase of the calf for his daughter.
- The calf was subsequently raised on the family ranch and sold the following year.
- The daughter received all the proceeds from the sale of the calf.
- This arrangement was consistent with past instances where calves were purchased for the Steinle children, who would own them and receive the full proceeds from their sale.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald and Doris Popejoy filed a complaint in trial court against the personal representatives of William E. Steinle's Estate.
- The Popejoys' claim was based on the theory that William Steinle was vicariously liable for Connie Steinle's alleged negligence because they were engaged in a joint venture.
- The Estate filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court initially denied.
- The trial court then granted the Estate's motion to bifurcate the trial to decide the joint venture issue separately.
- The Estate filed a second motion for summary judgment with additional evidence.
- The trial court granted the Estate's second motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of a joint venture.
- The Popejoys, as appellants, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 married couple's shared activity of purchasing a calf for their child, where the child is the intended sole recipient of the profits from the calf's eventual sale, constitute a joint venture with a 'community of pecuniary interest' sufficient to impose vicarious liability on one spouse for the other's alleged negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Golden
No. A joint venture sufficient to impose vicarious liability does not exist when the specific activity lacks a shared community of pecuniary interest. The court applied a four-part test for a joint enterprise: (1) an agreement, (2) a common purpose, (3) a community of pecuniary interest, and (4) an equal right of control. The court found that the third element, a community of pecuniary interest, was absent. The purpose of Connie's trip was not a commercial venture for mutual profit between her and William, but an act of 'parental nurturing, familial accommodation and generosity.' Since the daughter was the intended and actual sole beneficiary of any profits from the calf, the parents did not share the requisite pecuniary interest in this specific undertaking, even if they were joint venturers in the broader ranching operation. Therefore, William's estate cannot be held vicariously liable for Connie's alleged negligence.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a narrow application of the joint venture and joint enterprise doctrines, preventing their expansion into non-commercial family relationships. It establishes a critical distinction between a general family business partnership and specific, non-commercial activities undertaken by the partners. By requiring a shared pecuniary or profit motive for the specific activity in question, the court limits the scope of vicarious liability and protects individuals from being held responsible for the torts of family members during acts of personal generosity or family accommodation. This precedent makes it more difficult to impute liability between spouses or family members unless a clear, mutual business purpose for the specific tortious activity can be proven.
