Popejoy v. Steinle

Supreme Court of Wyoming · 1991 · Torts

820 P.2d 545 (1991)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortsvicarious liabilityjoint venturesummary judgmentjoint enterprisepecuniary interestprofit motivefamily undertaking

Facts

Connie Steinle was driving to Douglas with her seven-year-old daughter to buy a calf for the daughter to raise when she collided with Ronald Popejoy's vehicle. After Connie died in the accident, William completed the purchase a week later; the calf was raised on the family ranch, sold the next year, and the daughter received the sale proceeds. The Popejoys sought to hold William's estate liable by claiming William and Connie were engaged in a joint venture at the time of the trip. The Estate presented evidence that calves bought for the children were treated as the children's own livestock, separately branded, and that sale proceeds went directly to the children rather than to William or Connie.

Issue

Whether the summary judgment record showed a genuine issue of material fact that William and Connie Steinle were engaged in a joint venture when Connie drove to purchase a calf for their daughter, such that Connie's alleged negligence could be imputed to William's estate. More specifically, the question was whether the required community of pecuniary or profit-motive interest existed in that transaction.

Rule

To establish a joint venture or joint enterprise for purposes of vicarious liability in Wyoming, the party asserting the relationship must prove: (1) an express or implied agreement; (2) a common purpose; (3) a community of pecuniary interest in that purpose; and (4) an equal right to a voice in the direction and control of the enterprise. In business or commercial settings, the doctrine is narrowly limited to ventures with a distinct business, commercial, or profit motive, and an agreement to share profits is essential; mere family cooperation or sharing of incidental expenses does not suffice.

🔒

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 Casper, Wyoming, Nora Ellis and her husband, Brent Ellis, jointly own a small hay operation. They agree to buy 40 feeder calves, raise them with their existing herd, and split the net sale proceeds equally; both have equal authority over purchases, care, and timing of sale. While driving to pick up the calves, Nora negligently collides with another vehicle.

If the injured driver sues Brent on a theory that Nora's negligence should be imputed to him, which is the strongest argument that a joint venture existed?

Explanation. A joint venture requires an agreement, common purpose, community of pecuniary interest, and equal right of control. The majority emphasized that the crucial element is a distinct business, commercial, or profit-motive pecuniary interest, including an agreement to share profits. Choice A supplies those features. Marriage, land ownership, or payment of expenses alone is insufficient.