Shinn v. Allen
Texas Court of Appeals
984 S.W.2d 308 (1998)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
While driving with his friend, Russell Allen (defendant), as a passenger, Jeremy Faggard pulled his vehicle into a convenience store to purchase beer. Both Allen and Faggard were under 21. Allen later said that he did not know that the purchase of alcohol was Faggard’s intent when the pair went for a drive. Additionally, Allen stated that he did not pay any amount toward the purchase of the alcohol. Thereafter, Faggard drank approximately seven beers, while Allen consumed between four and five beers. Allen later asked Faggard to give him a ride to his house so that he could make it to dinner. During the trip, Faggard’s vehicle collided with a car driven by Robert Shinn. Shinn was killed in the crash. Shinn’s wife, Gail (plaintiff), was seriously injured. Gail filed suit against Allen, alleging negligence and claiming that Allen had substantially assisted or encouraged an intoxicated Faggard to drive, which ultimately caused the death of her husband and injuries to her. Allen filed a motion for summary judgment, claiming that he owed no duty to Gail. The trial court granted Allen’s motion. Gail appealed, arguing that the evidence sufficiently established a duty on the part of Allen under the concern-of-action theory of liability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wilson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.