Pipher v. Parsell: Difference between revisions
→top: add "use mdy dates" template |
JPRoland909 (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
== Facts == |
== Facts == |
||
As they were traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly seized the steering wheel of the pickup truck, prompting an immediate and dangerous deviation from their path. This initial act of taking control of the wheel was met with surprise by the occupants, yet it was not the last. Despite the initial shock and the laughter that followed what seemed like a jest, the situation escalated. A short while later, Beisel, in a repeat of her earlier action, again grabbed the steering wheel. This time, her actions resulted in the vehicle veering off the road and descending an [[Embankment (transportation)|embankment]], ultimately leading to a collision with a tree. |
|||
Three 16-year-olds were driving in a [[Pickup truck|truck]], all seated in the front seat: One boy (Parsell) driving and two girls, one in the middle seat and one next to the passenger side door. A passenger, the girl next to the door (Beisel), grabbed the steering wheel as if intending to make a [[car crash]], at which all the occupants of laughed. A few minutes later the same girl grabbed the steering wheel again, this time actually causing an [[Traffic collision|accident]]. The girl in the middle (Pipher), suffered damages and sued the driver. |
|||
This second, more serious intervention by Beisel had significant consequences. Pipher, the passenger seated in the middle, sustained injuries from the crash and subsequently initiated legal proceedings against the driver, Parsell. In his testimony, Parsell recounted the sequence of events, emphasizing the unexpected nature of Beisel's initial maneuver that led to the truck veering onto the road's shoulder. Despite the initial instance of Beisel's interference, which had placed Parsell on high alert, he confessed to not anticipating a recurrence of her perilous actions. |
|||
"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." Parsell testified that Beisel's conduct caused him both shock and surprise. Although Beisel's conduct prompted him to be on his guard, Parsell further testified that he did not expect Beisel to grab the wheel again. Nevertheless, his recognition of how serious Beisel's conduct was, shows he was aware that he now had someone in his car who had engaged in dangerous behavior." |
|||
The incident, marked by Beisel's unexpected actions and the subsequent crash down an embankment, underscored the unforeseen dangers that led to the legal dispute following the injuries Pipher sustained. This detailed account illustrates the critical moments and decisions that precipitated the traffic collision. |
|||
Parsell testified that he did nothing in response to Beisel's initial action. Approximately thirty seconds later, Beisel again yanked the steering wheel, causing Parsell's truck to leave the roadway, slide down an [[Embankment (transportation)|embankment]] and strike a tree. Pipher was injured as a result of the collision." |
|||
== Holding == |
== Holding == |
||
Revision as of 01:10, 20 February 2024
 | This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
| Pipher v. Parsell | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Supreme Court of Delaware |
| Full case name | Kristyn Pipher, Plaintiff Below, Appellant, v. Johnathan Parsell, Defendant Below, Appellee. |
| Decided | June 19, 2007 |
| Citation | 930 A.2d 890 |
| Case history | |
| Appealed from | Delaware Superior Court |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Myron T. Steele, Randy J. Holland, Carolyn Berger, Jack B. Jacobs, John W. Noble[a] |
Pipher v. Parsell[1] is a case that was decided before the Supreme Court of Delaware. It shows that a minor can be held to an adult standard of care when engaging in inherently dangerous activities such as driving.[2]
Facts
As they were traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly seized the steering wheel of the pickup truck, prompting an immediate and dangerous deviation from their path. This initial act of taking control of the wheel was met with surprise by the occupants, yet it was not the last. Despite the initial shock and the laughter that followed what seemed like a jest, the situation escalated. A short while later, Beisel, in a repeat of her earlier action, again grabbed the steering wheel. This time, her actions resulted in the vehicle veering off the road and descending an embankment, ultimately leading to a collision with a tree.
This second, more serious intervention by Beisel had significant consequences. Pipher, the passenger seated in the middle, sustained injuries from the crash and subsequently initiated legal proceedings against the driver, Parsell. In his testimony, Parsell recounted the sequence of events, emphasizing the unexpected nature of Beisel's initial maneuver that led to the truck veering onto the road's shoulder. Despite the initial instance of Beisel's interference, which had placed Parsell on high alert, he confessed to not anticipating a recurrence of her perilous actions.
The incident, marked by Beisel's unexpected actions and the subsequent crash down an embankment, underscored the unforeseen dangers that led to the legal dispute following the injuries Pipher sustained. This detailed account illustrates the critical moments and decisions that precipitated the traffic collision.
Holding
In an opinion written by Justice Holland, the court held that the plaintiff's evidence should have been submitted to the jury because it was possible that the accident was foreseeable.
"In general, where the actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, there is no negligence attributable to the driver. But, when actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver's safe operation of the motor vehicle are foreseeable, the failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of the driver's duty to either other passengers or to the public. 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."
The case was reversed and remanded.
Notes
- ^ Vice Chancellor of Delaware Court of Chancery, sitting by designation
References
- ^ Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007)
- ^ Casenotes. Torts.