## Facts

- Kristyn Pipher rode as a front-seat passenger in a pickup truck driven by Johnathan Parsell; another front-seat passenger, Johnene Beisel, sat by the passenger door.
- While traveling about 55 mph on Delaware Route 1, Beisel unexpectedly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the truck to veer onto the shoulder.
- Parsell regained control and testified the first grab shocked him and put him “on his guard,” and he recognized the seriousness of the conduct.
- Parsell took no corrective action after the first grab during the roughly 30 seconds before the next incident.
- Beisel grabbed the steering wheel a second time, causing the truck to leave the roadway, slide down an embankment, and strike a tree; Pipher was injured.
- Pipher testified that Parsell and Beisel laughed after the first grab and that this reaction contributed to Beisel repeating the conduct.
- Parsell acknowledged he could have taken precautions after the first incident, including warning Beisel not to touch the steering wheel again or otherwise intervening.
- Pipher sued Parsell and Beisel for negligence; the trial court entered judgment as a matter of law for Parsell, and Pipher appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a driver owes a duty to protect passengers from a co-passenger’s harmful conduct when that conduct is reasonably foreseeable.
2. Whether, after a passenger’s initial interference with the steering wheel, a reasonable jury could find the driver negligent for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent a recurrence, making judgment as a matter of law improper.
3. Whether a minor operating a motor vehicle is held to an adult standard of care in negligence.

## Decision

- The Delaware Supreme Court reversed the judgment as a matter of law for Parsell and remanded.
- The court held that the question of Parsell’s negligence should have been submitted to the jury.
- The court reasoned that, after the first steering-wheel grab, a reasonable jury could find the second grab was foreseeable and that Parsell’s failure to act could constitute a breach of duty.

## Legal Principles

- A driver owes a duty of reasonable care to passengers and to the public because injury is a foreseeable result of careless operation leading to collision.
- When a passenger’s interference with vehicle operation is not foreseeable, the driver is not negligent for failing to prevent it.
- When a passenger’s interference is foreseeable, a driver’s failure to take reasonable steps to prevent it may breach the driver’s duty to passengers and the public.
- Negligence questions turning on foreseeability and reasonableness are ordinarily for the jury when reasonable minds could differ.
- A minor engaged in the inherently dangerous activity of driving is held to the adult standard of care.

## Conclusion

Because Parsell recognized the danger created by Beisel’s first steering-wheel grab yet took no action before the second grab, a jury could reasonably find foreseeability, breach, and causation; the trial court therefore erred by removing negligence from the jury and granting judgment as a matter of law.


Pipher v. Parsell, 930 A.2d 890 (Del. 2007)