## Facts

- Kenneth C. Wall drove a pickup truck on U.S. Route 119 in West Virginia with his wife Louise and their two minor children as passengers.
- A southbound car driven by Stephen E. Garretson, with Larry Halstead, Bobby Gillenwater, and Timmy Clay as passengers, collided head-on with the Wall vehicle.
- Kenneth Wall was killed; Louise Wall and the children were injured.
- The complaint alleged Garretson and the passengers drank beer and smoked marijuana before and during the trip, and that the passengers procured and supplied beer and marijuana to Garretson and one another.
- Plaintiffs alleged Garretson, impaired and driving at excessive speed, lost control and caused the collision.
- Plaintiffs sued the passengers on theories including joint venture/joint enterprise, negligent failure to restrain Garretson from driving intoxicated, and concerted action for substantially assisting or encouraging Garretson’s tortious conduct by furnishing intoxicants and encouraging the impaired driving.

## Issues

1. Whether the complaint stated a claim that the passengers were engaged in a joint venture or joint enterprise with the driver sufficient to impute the driver’s negligence to them.
2. Whether the complaint stated a claim that the passengers negligently failed to prevent or restrain an intoxicated driver.
3. Whether the complaint stated a claim for concerted tortious activity under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b) based on substantial assistance or encouragement of the driver’s impaired driving.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal and remanded.
- The court held the complaint did not adequately plead joint venture/joint enterprise liability because it failed to allege the essential element of a common right to control the vehicle’s operation.
- The court held the complaint did plead a viable theory of concerted action under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b), based on allegations that passengers procured and furnished intoxicants and thereby substantially assisted or encouraged the driver’s tortious conduct.
- Applying the liberal Rule 12(b)(6) standard, the court concluded it was not beyond doubt that plaintiffs could prove no set of facts entitling them to relief on the concerted-action theory.

## Legal Principles

- A complaint should not be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts supporting relief; allegations are construed in the plaintiff’s favor.
- Joint enterprise/joint venture imputed-negligence theories in the automobile context require a common right of control over the vehicle; contribution to trip expenses or shared social purposes, without shared control, is insufficient.
- A passenger generally has no automatic duty to control a driver, but liability may arise where the passenger’s conduct helps create or increase the risk of harm.
- Under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876(b), one who knows another’s conduct is tortious and gives substantial assistance or encouragement may be liable for resulting harm; affirmative furnishing of intoxicants and encouragement of impaired driving can constitute substantial assistance at the pleading stage.

## Conclusion

The court allowed claims against passengers to proceed when the complaint alleged they actively facilitated and encouraged intoxicated driving, supporting concerted-action liability under Restatement § 876(b), while rejecting imputed-liability theories premised on joint enterprise absent allegations of shared control over the vehicle.


Price v. Halstead, 355 S.E.2d 380 (W. Va. 1987)