Lexplug logoLexplug

Webber v. Sobba

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
322 F.3d 1032 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The doctrine of joint enterprise, which imputes the negligence of one member to another in actions against third parties, does not apply in a lawsuit brought by one member of the enterprise against another negligent member of that same enterprise.


Facts:

  • David Webber and Holly Bray drove to Missouri, where Webber purchased several cases of beer and wine coolers.
  • Webber and Bray returned to Salem, Arkansas, transferred the alcohol to Bray's car, and began drinking while driving around.
  • They encountered Brandy Sobba, who joined them, and the three continued to drink and drive.
  • Later in the evening, with Sobba now driving, Webber instructed her to take a specific back road to avoid the police, providing directions as she was unfamiliar with the route.
  • While Sobba was driving, Webber sat in the front middle between Sobba and Bray, who had passed out.
  • Sobba testified that Webber began trying to kiss and touch her while she was driving.
  • The car left the road and struck a bridge abutment, causing serious injuries to all three occupants.

Procedural Posture:

  • David Webber sued Brandy Sobba for negligence in an Arkansas state trial court.
  • The state court denied Webber's motion for partial summary judgment to strike Sobba's joint-enterprise defense.
  • After the jury was empaneled, Webber voluntarily nonsuited his case, which was dismissed without prejudice.
  • Webber refiled the action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
  • The District Court denied Webber’s renewed motion for summary judgment on the joint-enterprise defense.
  • The case proceeded to a jury trial, where the jury returned a general verdict for Sobba.
  • The District Court entered judgment in favor of Sobba.
  • Webber, as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with Sobba as the appellee.

Locked

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 Arkansas law permit a defendant in a negligence action to assert the joint-enterprise defense against a plaintiff who was a fellow member of the alleged joint enterprise?


Opinions:

Majority - Bowman, Circuit Judge

No. The joint-enterprise defense cannot be asserted against another member of the enterprise in a negligence action. Because Arkansas law is unsettled on this question, the court must predict how the Arkansas Supreme Court would rule. The overwhelming majority of jurisdictions, along with the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 491(2), have rejected the application of this defense in suits between members of the enterprise. The court found no principled policy reason for Arkansas to depart from this majority rule, as allowing the defense would permit a negligent party to use their own culpability as a shield. Furthermore, the doctrine of comparative fault already provides a sufficient mechanism for the jury to apportion responsibility and hold a plaintiff accountable for any contribution to their own injuries, making the joint-enterprise defense an unnecessary anachronism in this context.



Analysis:

This decision clarifies, by prediction, a previously unsettled question in Arkansas tort law, bringing the state in line with the overwhelming national majority and the Restatement of Torts. By prohibiting the use of the joint-enterprise defense in actions between members, the court prevents the doctrine from being used as an absolute bar to recovery where a party is directly injured by their associate's negligence. This reinforces the primacy of Arkansas's comparative fault system, ensuring that juries, rather than an archaic legal fiction, are responsible for apportioning fault between the parties involved in an incident.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Webber v. Sobba (2003)

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