Pipher v. Parsell

Supreme Court of Delaware · 2007 · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyForeseeabilityProximate Causedriver dutypassenger interferenceforeseeability

Facts

Parsell was driving his pickup truck with Pipher seated in the middle and Beisel in the passenger seat. While traveling about 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly grabbed the steering wheel once, causing the truck to veer onto the shoulder, but Parsell regained control and did nothing in response. About thirty seconds later, Beisel grabbed the wheel again, causing the truck to leave the roadway, go down an embankment, and hit a tree, injuring Pipher. Parsell acknowledged at trial that after the first incident he could have admonished Beisel, pulled over and moved her to the back seat, or warned that he would put her out of the vehicle.

Issue

After a passenger unexpectedly interferes with the steering wheel once, does the driver owe a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent a repetition, such that the driver's failure to act can present a jury question on negligence? Relatedly, were foreseeability, breach, and proximate cause properly taken from the jury here?

Rule

A driver owes passengers a duty of reasonable care. If a passenger's conduct interfering with the safe operation of the vehicle is not foreseeable, negligence is not attributable to the driver; but when such interference is foreseeable, the driver may breach that duty by failing to make a reasonable attempt to prevent the passenger from repeating the conduct. Disputed questions of foreseeability and proximate cause are factual determinations for the jury.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Lena Ortiz was driving three friends home on a county highway near Dayton when front-seat passenger Noah Pike suddenly slapped the gear selector and caused the car to lurch. Lena regained control, laughed, and continued at the same speed without saying anything. About twenty seconds later, Noah grabbed the selector again, sending the car into a ditch and injuring rear-seat passenger Maya Chen.

If Maya sues Lena for negligence, which is the strongest argument against judgment as a matter of law for Lena?

Explanation. A driver owes passengers a duty of reasonable care. When a passenger’s interference with safe vehicle operation becomes foreseeable, the driver may breach that duty by failing to make a reasonable attempt to prevent repetition. Under the majority opinion, disputed questions of foreseeability, breach, and proximate cause should go to the jury if the evidence permits reasonable disagreement. Lena is not automatically negligent, but judgment as a matter of law would be improper here because a jury could find the second interference foreseeable after the first one.