## Facts

- Constance E. Steinle drove from the family ranch near Douglas, Wyoming, with her daughter and niece to buy a calf for the daughter to raise.
- En route, Constance’s truck collided with a vehicle driven by Ronald L. Popejoy; Constance died, and Popejoy later underwent cervical fusion surgeries allegedly related to the crash.
- The Steinle family ranch allowed children to raise “their own” animals; when sold, proceeds went to the children rather than to William or Constance.
- Constance’s estate was probated and closed; later, William E. Steinle died of unrelated causes.
- Unable to reopen Constance’s estate, the Popejoys asserted a creditor’s claim against William’s estate, alleging Constance’s negligence should be imputed to William under a joint venture/joint enterprise theory tied to the calf purchase.
- The Estate rejected the claim; the Popejoys sued, asserting the trip concerned the ranch’s business and that William and Constance shared a financial interest in the calf.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence created a genuine issue of material fact that William and Constance Steinle were engaged in a joint venture/joint enterprise in purchasing the calf, such that Constance’s alleged negligence could be imputed to William’s estate.

## Decision

- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Estate.
- The court held the Popejoys failed, as a matter of law, to establish a joint venture because the record did not show a community of pecuniary interest or profit motive shared by William and Constance in the calf purchase.
- Because an essential element was missing, vicarious liability could not be imposed on William’s estate on a joint venture theory.

## Legal Principles

- For tort imputation purposes, “joint venture” and “joint enterprise” are treated interchangeably and require: (1) an agreement, express or implied; (2) a common purpose; (3) a community of pecuniary interest; and (4) an equal right of control.
- A business, commercial, or profit motive is required; shared family activity or marital relationship alone does not create a joint venture.
- The party asserting a joint venture bears the burden of proving its elements.
- Summary judgment is proper when, even viewing the record favorably to the nonmovant, the evidence cannot satisfy an essential element of the asserted joint venture theory.

## Conclusion

The court held that a spouse’s alleged driving negligence could not be imputed to the other spouse’s estate absent proof that both spouses shared a profit-oriented pecuniary interest in the specific undertaking; the calf purchase was treated as a gift or youth project for the child, not a joint commercial venture.


Popejoy v. Steinle, 820 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991)