Vetter v. Morgan

Court of Appeals of Kansas
22 Kan. App.2d 1, 913 P.2d 1200 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A passenger who intentionally threatens and frightens the driver of another vehicle can be held liable for assault and negligence if that driver subsequently crashes, as the passenger's actions can be a proximate cause of the injuries and the passenger may be found to be acting in concert with their own driver.

Facts:

At approximately 1:30 a.m., Laura Vetter was alone in her van, stopped at a red light.
A car driven by Dana Gaither, with Chad Morgan as a passenger, pulled up alongside Vetter's van.
Morgan began screaming obscenities at Vetter, shaking his fist, making obscene gestures, and verbally threatening to remove her from her van.
While Morgan was yelling, Gaither revved the car's engine and moved the car back and forth.
Morgan spat on Vetter's van door.
Vetter was very frightened by Morgan's behavior.
When the traffic light turned green, both vehicles proceeded forward, and the car driven by Gaither veered into Vetter's lane.
In reaction, Vetter steered her van sharply to the right, struck a curb, and sustained injuries.

Procedural Posture:

Laura Vetter filed a lawsuit against Chad Morgan and Dana Gaither in a Kansas trial court.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Morgan, dismissing all of Vetter's claims against him.
Vetter reached a settlement with the driver, Gaither, which the trial court approved.
Vetter, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Morgan, the appellee, to the Kansas Court of Appeals.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Can a passenger in a vehicle be held liable for assault and negligence for injuries a driver of another vehicle sustains in a crash that occurs after the passenger intentionally frightened the driver with verbal threats and menacing gestures?

Opinions:

Majority - Briscoe, C.J.

Yes, a passenger can be held liable for assault and negligence for injuries sustained by another driver whom the passenger intentionally frightened. The court reasoned that while words alone are typically not an assault, they can become one when coupled with other acts or circumstances that place a person in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm. Here, Morgan's verbal threats, combined with his violent gestures, the late hour, and the presence of his companions, were sufficient for a jury to find an assault occurred. The court also found a basis for negligence, reasoning that a negligence claim can arise from the unintended results of intentional acts, such as a prank; it was foreseeable that subjecting a lone woman to sudden fright late at night could create an unreasonable risk of harm. Finally, Morgan could be liable for the actions of the driver, Gaither, because a jury could find they were acting in concert to harass Vetter, and Gaither's swerving was a foreseeable consequence of the harassment, not an independent intervening cause.

Analysis:

This case clarifies that legal liability for a vehicular accident is not limited to the person physically operating the car. It establishes that a passenger's intentional torts, such as assault, can be a proximate cause of a driver's reactive accident. The decision reinforces the principle that one can be liable for the foreseeable, unintended consequences of their intentional acts under a negligence theory. Furthermore, it highlights the 'acting in concert' doctrine, showing how encouragement or participation in a tortious activity can impute liability from one actor to another, preventing a participant from escaping responsibility by claiming they were not in direct control.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Vetter v. Morgan (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature