## Facts

- David Cullip (age 14) invited two friends, William Domann and Johnny Jack (J.J.) Mercer (both age 14), to his home and proposed that they go hunting.
- David supplied the firearms (two rifles and a shotgun) and ammunition arrangements included J.J. giving David $5 for ammunition.
- David’s mother drove the boys to property not owned by any of them, gave a brief safety talk, and left them there to hunt.
- J.J. had no prior hunting experience and had not completed a hunter safety course required by Kansas statute for certain youth hunting with firearms.
- While hunting, William carried a loaded 12-gauge shotgun; it accidentally discharged and struck David, causing permanent paralysis.
- David alleged J.J. knew William was carrying a loaded shotgun near David, failed to pay attention to William, and failed to warn David he was in the line of fire.
- David sued multiple defendants under theories including negligence per se, joint enterprise/joint venture, and parental negligent supervision; all defendants settled except J.J. and J.J.’s parents (Joe and LuElla Mercer).

## Issues

1. Whether J.J.’s violation of the Kansas hunter-safety statute constituted negligence per se and, if so, whether that violation was a proximate cause of David’s injuries.
2. Whether the hunting outing was a joint enterprise/joint venture allowing J.J. to be held liable for William’s negligent handling of the shotgun.
3. Whether J.J.’s parents owed a duty to control or supervise J.J. to prevent the injury to David.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for J.J. Mercer and his parents.
- The court held that, even assuming a statutory violation by J.J., the violation was not a proximate cause of David’s injury.
- The court held the boys’ activity did not meet the elements of a joint enterprise because J.J. lacked an equal right of control over the shotgun.
- The court held J.J.’s parents owed no duty to control J.J. under the circumstances because the injury was not reasonably foreseeable and there was no evidence of known dangerous propensities.

## Legal Principles

- Summary judgment is proper when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law; appellate review is de novo with reasonable inferences drawn for the nonmovant.
- Negligence per se requires (1) a statutory violation and (2) causation of the damages; a statutory breach does not create liability without proximate cause.
- Proximate cause requires a natural and continuous sequence producing the injury, unbroken by an efficient intervening cause; when undisputed facts allow only one inference, proximate cause may be decided as a matter of law.
- A joint enterprise requires (1) an agreement, (2) a common purpose, (3) a community of interest, and (4) an equal right to a voice and an equal right of control over the instrumentality; shared participation alone is insufficient.
- Parental liability for failure to control a child generally requires foreseeability based on knowledge of specific dangerous propensities or circumstances creating an unreasonable risk of harm.

## Conclusion

The court rejected liability against a non-shooting participant and his parents after a hunting accident, concluding that the alleged hunter-safety statute violation did not proximately cause the injury, the group outing lacked the equal-control element required for joint enterprise liability, and the parents had no duty to prevent an unforeseeable accident absent notice of dangerous tendencies or special risk.


Cullip v. Domann, 972 P.2d 776 (Kan. 1999)