Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialduty of care
plaintiffdefendantdamagesnegligenceduty of care

Related Cases

Eaton v. McLain, 891 S.W.2d 587
View Case »
Willis v. Westerfield, 839 N.E.2d 1179
View Case »
Bertin v. Mann, 502 Mich. 603, 918 N.W.2d 707
View Case »
Webb v. Rome, W. & O.R. Co., 4 Sickels 420, 49 N.Y. 420, 1872 WL 9930, 10 Am.Rep. 389
View Case »
Gleitman v. Cosgrove, 49 N.J. 22, 227 A.2d 689, 22 A.L.R.3d 1411
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890

Facts

On March 20, 2002, Kristyn Pipher, Johnathan Parsell, and Johnene Beisel were traveling in Parsell's pickup truck when Beisel unexpectedly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the truck to veer off the road. Parsell, who was driving, testified that he was shocked by Beisel's actions but did not expect her to do it again. Approximately thirty seconds later, Beisel grabbed the wheel a second time, leading to a collision that injured Pipher. During the trial, it was revealed that Parsell could have taken steps to prevent Beisel from grabbing the wheel again but chose not to.

As they were traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly 'grabbed the steering wheel causing the truck to veer off onto the shoulder of the road.'

Issue

Did the Superior Court err in granting judgment as a matter of law in favor of driver Johnathan Parsell, thereby failing to submit the issue of his negligence to the jury?

Pipher argues that the Superior Court erred when it ruled that, as a matter of law, Parsell was not negligent.

Rule

To establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and that the breach was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury. A driver owes a duty of care to passengers, and if a dangerous situation is foreseeable, the driver may have a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent harm.

In order to establish a negligence claim, a plaintiff must establish that 'defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care; defendant breached that duty; and defendant's breach was the proximate cause of plaintiff's injury.'

Analysis

The court analyzed whether Parsell had a duty to protect Pipher after Beisel's initial action of grabbing the steering wheel. It concluded that once Parsell was aware of Beisel's dangerous behavior, he had a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent her from repeating that action. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine that Parsell's failure to act constituted a breach of his duty to protect Pipher, thus making the issue of negligence a question for the jury.

Under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable jury could find that Parsell breached his duty to protect Pipher from Beisel by preventing Beisel from grabbing the steering wheel a second time.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings, indicating that the issue of Parsell's negligence should have been decided by a jury.

Accordingly, the judgment of the Superior Court, that was entered as a matter of law, is reversed.

Who won?

Kristyn Pipher prevailed in the appeal because the Supreme Court found that the issue of negligence should have been submitted to a jury, reversing the lower court's ruling.

Pipher was awarded $70,150.00 in damages against Beisel.

You must be