Price v. Halstead
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
355 S.E.2d 380 (1987)
- Written by Ross Sewell, JD
Facts
Kenneth Wall was driving with his wife, Louise Wall (plaintiff), and their two minor children. Stephen Garretson (defendant) was speeding in the opposite direction with passengers (defendants) while under the influence of alcohol and marijuana. Both before and during the trip, Garretson and his passengers drank beer and smoked marijuana. All the passengers provided Garretson with beer and marijuana. Garretson lost control of his automobile and hit the Walls’ vehicle head-on, killing Kenneth. The administrator of Kenneth’s estate (plaintiff) and Louise sued Garretson and his passengers under four theories. First, they alleged that Garretson and his passengers were in a joint venture of purchasing and utilizing gas, beer, and marijuana while joyriding. Second, they alleged Garretson and his passengers’ activities were a joint enterprise. Third, they alleged Garretson’s passengers were negligent in failing to restrain Garretson when they knew or should have known he was driving while under the influence. Finally, they relied on a theory of joint and concerted tortious activity under the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b), alleging Garretson’s passengers substantially assisted or encouraged Garretson’s tortious activity by providing him with additional drugs and beer. The trial court dismissed the claim.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
