Pipher v. Parsell
Delaware Supreme Court
930 A.2d 890 (2007)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Kristyn Pipher (plaintiff) and Johnene Beisel were passengers in the truck of Johnathan Parsell (defendant). All three 16-year-olds were sitting on the front seat, with Parsell driving. While traveling at 55 miles per hour, Beisel surprised Parsell by unexpectedly grabbing the steering wheel, causing the truck to veer onto the shoulder of the road. Parsell righted the truck but did not otherwise respond to Beisel’s conduct. Approximately 30 seconds later, Beisel again grabbed the wheel, causing the truck to leave the road and strike a tree. Pipher was injured and sued Parsell for negligence. At trial, Parsell acknowledged that he could have warned Beisel not to touch the wheel, asked her to move into the backseat, or threatened to remove her from the vehicle. However, the trial judge reasoned that a reasonable driver would not expect a passenger to grab the wheel a second time. Thus, the court held that, as a matter of law, Parsell had no duty to do anything in response to Beisel’s initially grabbing the wheel. The trial court further held that Parsell’s failure to admonish Beisel could not be considered the proximate cause of Pipher’s injuries. Accordingly, the trial court ruled against Pipher, finding Parsell was not negligent. Pipher appealed to the Delaware Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Holland, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
