Wehner v. Weinstein
West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
444 S.E.2d 27 (1994)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
David Turner, a delivery driver for Mario’s Pizza (defendant), delivered pizza to the Sigma Phi Epsilon (defendant) fraternity house and parked in the steep driveway, blocking traffic. Brett Barry Weinstein (defendant) attempted to leave the fraternity house but was blocked in by the delivery vehicle. Assisted by Matthew Kiser (defendant), Weinstein shifted the delivery vehicle into neutral, causing the vehicle to roll down the hill. The vehicle struck three West Virginia University students, killing Jennifer Wehner and injuring Nicole Fisher and Jessica Landau (collectively, the students) (plaintiffs). The administrator of Wehner’s estate (plaintiff), Fisher, and Landau sued Weinstein, Kiser, Sigma Phi Epsilon, the Sigma Phi Epsilon Building Association (the building association) (defendant), and Mario’s Pizza. Wehner’s estate sought compensation for loss of future earnings. The jury found in favor of the students and awarded $1,978,623 to Wehner’s estate. Weinstein, Kiser, Sigma Phi Epsilon, the building association, and Mario’s Pizza argued in the trial court that a damage award for loss of future earnings should be offset by Wehner’s personal living expenses throughout her normal life expectancy. The trial court rejected this argument. Kiser, Sigma Phi Epsilon, the building association, and Mario’s Pizza appealed, arguing that the trial court erred by failing to require the jury to offset the damage award.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miller, 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.