Cullip v. Domann
Kansas Supreme Court
972 P.2d 776 (1999)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
David Cullip (plaintiff) was a 14-year-old boy who went hunting with two friends, William Domann and Johnny Jack Mercer (J.J.) (defendants). David invited the boys to his house and then suggested they go hunting. David provided two rifles and a shotgun for the boys to use. David’s mother, Lula Cullip (defendant), gave a brief instruction about gun safety, drove the boys to a property not owned by any of them, and left them there for the afternoon. J.J. had no knowledge or experience with hunting, but he gave David $5 for ammunition. While they were hunting, William accidentally fired the shotgun at David, paralyzing him. At the time of the accident, J.J. was aware William was carrying a loaded shotgun near David’s location, but J.J. was not paying attention to William and did not warn David about being in William’s line of fire. David filed suit against William, William’s parents (defendants), and Lula, as well as J.J. and his parents, LuElla and Joe Mercer (defendants). David settled with all defendants other than the Mercers. The trial court granted the Mercers’ motion for summary judgment, holding that LuElla and Joe Mercer owed no duty to David and that J.J. had not breached a duty to David. David appealed, arguing in part that J.J. was liable to David because the two were engaged in a joint venture.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Davis, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 821,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
