Like petitioner herein, the appellant in Strahin, supra, argued that Miller stands for the proposition that he had no duty to protect appellee from the intentional, criminal acts of third parties. 2, James M.B. 3, Id. Cited Cases . View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Marcus Staubs. In particular, the trial court suggested that, as an accomplice to Woodward's procurement of the alcohol, petitioner was criminally liable as the sole perpetrator, Woodward. 1955) Martin v. United States. This Court found that the trial court properly. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Assumption of the Risk Moore v. The operation could not be completed. Petitioner then turns his focus to other jurisdictions which have declined to impose social host liability when alcohol has been provided to minors. 6 (1979) Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. 347 F.3d 672 (2003) Mavrikidis v. Petullo. The fact that a collateral agreement then triggered payment by Nationwide does not obviate the fact that petitioner has a judgment against him, which is the very essence of a justiciable claim. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. 14, Id. Respondent further cites exclusively to Woodward's testimony indicating that he “believe[d]” petitioner called him the next day and told him that the girls called him for a ride home and that he refused. 3, in part, Painter, supra. U nás nájdete: Pracovná obuv, Vysávače, Kompresory, Elektrocentrály, Čerpadlá, Monterky, Å portová obuv, Rukavice, Vŕtačky, Stavebne náradie Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it. A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section; A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and. The email address cannot be subscribed. They returned minutes later with a truck they stole from neighbor Mack Jenkins and retrieved Kelly and Jessica. Fault of the Plaintiff Butterfield v. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No. Syl. This Court has cautioned lower courts that. To that end, the Court has held the following: “The ultimate test of the existence of a duty to use care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result if it is not exercised. The holding and reasoning section includes: v1508 - c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 - 2020-12-18T12:41:07Z. 545 (1928) Summers v. DooleyIdaho Sup. practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 16,500+ case Pt. However, as is patently obvious from the foregoing discussion, the trial court unquestionably acted as both “judge and jury.”. On December 9, 2006, Samantha and her friend, 15–year–old Kelly Mazur (hereinafter “Kelly”) called 18–year–old Petitioner and requested a ride to meet Misty and Samantha's sister, Jessica, near the home of 14–year–old Adrian Villalobos (hereinafter “Adrian”), where they intended to meet others for a party. FILED . Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select. Samantha was killed; Jessica sustained a head injury. This website requires JavaScript. Misty, who was intoxicated, got behind the wheel and proceeded to drive Samantha and Jessica home. In particular, the trial court cites to Woodward's testimony indicating that petitioner asked him if he would “get the girls alcohol” and finds that petitioner “facilitate[d]” the purchase of alcohol for the minors. law school study materials, including 801 video lessons and 5,200+ Woodward testified that the following morning, petitioner “or someone” called him to advise of the accident and told him that the girls called petitioner for a ride and he refused to pick them up. Minutes later, with Misty at the wheel and Samantha an unsecured front passenger, the vehicle hit an embankment. ]” Syl. It is from this finding that petitioner appeals. Respondent's standing argument is based on her contention that the settlement agreement vitiated any “justiciable claim” petitioner had in this matter. December 7, 2012 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS. As we observed at the outset of this opinion: Syl. This Court has long recognized that settlement agreements are contracts and subject to enforcement like any other contract. Pt. Syl. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. May peace be with you and your Dad. Where factual issues must first be resolved to determine the proper application of the law, summary judgment is erroneous, a principle which has long been part of our jurisprudence regarding the propriety of summary judgment. Each will be addressed in turn, below. ). Finally, we address counter-arguments raised by respondent all of which bear on petitioner's right to bring the instant appeal. Both were passengers in a vehicle stolen and driven by 14–year–old Misty Johnson (hereinafter “Misty”), who was intoxicated. at 185, 603 S.E.2d at 207. Delaney v. Reynolds Finding no one available to pick them up, Misty and Samantha left Adrian's house stating they were going to steal a car. Rather, petitioner testified that he went to Sweet Springs so Woodward could buy alcohol for himself, as had been their plan all day, and that the girls simply “begged” to go with them. Pt. Kelly believes that Samantha “probably would have called” petitioner for a ride. Petitioner maintains that he was neither involved in nor overheard any such conversation—despite all five of them being in the small extended cab of his truck. These factual issues notwithstanding, we do find that ample legal authority existed to form a potential basis of liability of petitioner.8 To the extent that petitioner was determined to have “provided” alcohol to the minors or “contributed” to their delinquency, certainly W. Va.Code § 55–7–9 provides for a basis of liability. Marcus v. Staubs Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2012 736 S.E.2d 360 Pg. Syl. Respondent Lori Ann Staubs filed suit as the mother and next friend of Jessica Staubs and as Administratrix of the Estate of Samantha Staubs against petitioner and others.2 Respondent alleged that petitioner and Woodward negligently “provided” alcohol to the minors. Petitioner argues next that, assuming petitioner “furnished” alcohol to the minors, an imposition of liability against him constitutes “social host liability,” which has not been recognized in West Virginia. -Not all criminal acts break the chain of causation (thus be an intervening superseding) (Marcus v Staubs) - Case by case basis Certainly on close calls should go to the jury-Even though have a criminal act, criminal act does not supersede original negligence liability Syl. 2, Evans v. Farmer, 148 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 (1963).” (emphasis added). 1 Profile Search Follow. Marcus e-shop Oravský Podzámok : Zaoberáme sa distribúciou ochranných pracovných pomôcok a stavebného náradia. Petitioner argues that the illegal consumption of alcohol by the minors, the theft of the vehicle, and Misty's reckless operation of the vehicle without a license and while intoxicated, all constitute intervening causes. We find that there was adequate factual basis to find that petitioner violated this statute without use of this concept. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. The undisputed testimony in this case indicates that the minors provided Woodward with ten to fifteen dollars for a purchase made at Sweet Springs–Woodward contends it was for cigarettes, Kelly testified it was for alcohol. JESSICA STAUBS lit a candle on 02/02/2017: "HEY SAMANTHA WE ISS U SO MUCH I HOPE DADDY AND MOM ARE WITH U AND GRANDMA SANDY I KNOW UR WATCHING OVER US ALL I MISS U" Dee Hypes lit a candle on 08/22/2016: "Sammy girl. After picking up Kelly and Samantha, petitioner proceeded to drive across the West Virginia/Virginia line to a convenience store called “Sweet Springs.” Both petitioner and Woodward testified that they had previously planned to visit the convenience store so Woodward could purchase alcohol. This Court noted that the facts adequately gave rise to a jury issue with regard to whether the subsequent criminal acts were reasonably foreseeable—the second exception discussed in Miller. 1, Overbaugh v. McCutcheon, 183 W. Va. 386, 396 S.E.2d 153 (1990). Barcode We are careful to note, however, that the issue of whether petitioner waived his right of appeal under the settlement agreement is distinguishable from a challenge to this Court's authority to hear a particular case. 1.  The testimony among these witnesses is inconsistent on whether Woodward handed the bag of alcohol to one of them or sat the bag down on the ground as well as whether he retrieved it from the cab or bed of the truck. Misty and Samantha began calling friends to find someone to give them a ride to another location. Hughes v. Lord Advocate Marcus v. Staubs Delaney v. Reynolds Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc. Marshall v. Nugent Chapter Nine. Jonathan Ray Marcus (defendant), age 18, and his 26-year-old friend Steven Woodward drove 14-year-old Samantha Staubs and her 13-year-old sister Jessica across the West Virginia state line into Virginia to purchase alcohol. The order states “[t]he Court finds that the facts of this tragic case are not in dispute.”3 The trial court then made the following findings: (1) that petitioner had a duty to both plaintiffs to “obey the law,” and that through his role in obtaining the alcohol, he had violated two statutes—W. Pt. Strahin presents a proper roadmap for the resolution of intertwining factual and legal issues as pertains to duty. “ ‘[a] motion by both plaintiff and defendant for summary judgment under Rule 56, R.C.P. Required Course Materials: The required course texts are: Dobbs, Hayden and Bublick, TORTS AND COMPENSATION, 8th ed., (West 2017).. Glannon, Joseph W., EXAMPLES AND EXPLANATIONS: THE LAW OF TORTS, 5th ed., (Aspen 2015) [referred to as “E&E”] in hardcopy or free online through … Here's why 423,000 law students have relied on our case briefs: Are you a current student of ? 3, in part, C & O Motors, Inc. v. West Virginia Paving, Inc., 223 W.Va. 469, 677 S.E.2d 905 (2009)(holding that “a judgment that does not determine damages is a final appealable order when the computation of damages is mechanical and unlikely to produce a second appeal because the only remaining task is ministerial, similar to assessing costs”). This case involves a single-car automobile accident which resulted in the death of 14–year–old Samantha Staubs (hereinafter “Samantha”) and serious injury to her sister, 13–year–old Jessica Staubs (hereinafter “Jessica”). Google Chrome, First, respondent argues that the settlement agreement did not provide for a right of appeal to either party and that therefore, petitioner's right to appeal was effectively waived. App., 164 N.E. There are 4 professionals named "Marcus Staub", who use LinkedIn to exchange information, ideas, and opportunities. Quimbee might not work properly for you until you. Accordingly, we find that the trial court's conclusory determination that petitioner was guilty of common law negligence, was error. We note first that the principle relied upon by petitioner is merely dicta as set forth in Miller. 9, Mountain Lodge Assoc., v. Crum & Forster Indemnity Co., 210 W. Va. 536, 558 S.E.2d 336 (2001). In her response brief, respondent raises two arguments neither of which were raised below, nor were they cross-assigned as error. 223 f: f: Delaney v. Reynolds Appeals Court of Massachusetts, Worcester, 2005 63 Mass. 160 Chapter Ten. This Court has held: “The questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, intervening cause and concurrent negligence are questions of fact for the jury where the evidence is conflicting or when the facts, though undisputed, are such that reasonable men draw different conclusions from them.” Syl. When the party was over, Samantha telephoned Marcus for a ride home, which he declined to provide. When interpreting a contract, courts must No. Approximately three weeks later, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granting respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment. Join Facebook to connect with Marcus Staub and others you may know. Respondent argues that this makes petitioner knowingly complicit in the procurement of alcohol for the minors and in clear violation of W. Va.Code § 11–16–19(c) and W. Va.Code § 49–7–7. To that end, for purposes of remand, we once again direct the trial court to Syllabus Point 10 of Harbaugh, supra: “ ‘The questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, intervening cause and concurrent negligence are questions of fact for the jury where the evidence is conflicting or when the facts, though undisputed, are such that reasonable men draw different conclusions from them.’ Syl. at 185, 603 S.E.2d at 207. v. Carolyn M., 193 W.Va. 289, 456 S.E.2d 16 (1995) (holding that even where neither party raises a jurisdictional question, the Court has the duty to determine its jurisdiction unilaterally). The Court is mystified by petitioner's insistence that it is immaterial to determination of liability in this matter whether petitioner was aware of the request for Woodward to purchase alcohol for the minors, whether Woodward did in fact purchase alcohol for the minors as opposed to himself, and whether petitioner refused to pick up the minors later that night—all disputed issues. 5, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991). Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass’n v. Univ. Petitioner argues that there is no “credible” evidence to suggest that petitioner requested Woodward to obtain alcohol for the minors, dismissing Woodward's testimony as self-serving. Petitioner further argues that the testimony suggesting the minors called him later that evening to be picked up is speculative, at best. Respondent likewise took the position that the material facts were undisputed. It is undisputed that petitioner did not exit the vehicle or purchase any alcohol. Although we find no merit in petitioner's assigned errors, we reverse and remand for further proceedings below inasmuch as we find that disputed issues of material fact pervade this matter making the trial court's entry of summary judgment erroneous. Please try again. The term “nonintoxicating” is used to distinguish beer and malt beverages from “liquor” which has a greater percentage of alcohol by volume, but does not constitute a legal determination. Missing you more than ever. like-liste Marcus 3-lags ansigtsmaske i stof, Marcus Facemask DKK 59,95; like-liste-76% Tilbud Marcus Jeans - Marcus Dennis 2086 DKK 399,95 DKK 95,00; like-liste-68% Tilbud Marcus Jeans - Marcus Dennis 2067 DKK 299,95 DKK 95,00; like-liste-87% Tilbud Marcus Vind og vandtæt jakke, sort lang, Marcus Fergus DKK 1.499,00 DKK 195,00 marcus v. staubs 736 S.E.2d 360 (2012) NATURE OF THE CASE: Marcus (D) appealed a summary judgment for Staub (P) as to liability in a negligence suit arising out a single car accident involving a stolen car driven by an intoxicated friend in which her two daughters were passengers. While such apportionment may not serve to affect damages by operation of the Settlement Agreement, such an exercise may certainly affect the critical issue of apportionment of fault, in whatever degree, to Marcus. However, whether petitioner actually violated these statutes such as to establish prima facie evidence of negligence, is an issue for the finder of fact: “ ‘[T]he determination as to whether there was in fact a [statutory] violation and whether the violation was the proximate cause of the injury is within the province of the jury.’ Syllabus Point 3, Simmons v. City of Bluefield, [159] W. Va. [451], 225 S .E.2d 202, 88 A.L.R.3d 105 (1975).” Syllabus Point 3, in part, Jones v. Two Rivers Ford, Inc., 171 W Va. 561, 301 S.E.2d 192 (1983). 3, Haga v. King Coal Chevrolet Company, 151 W. Va. 125, 150 S.E.2d 599 (1966).” Syl. Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. The test is, would the ordinary man in the defendant's position, knowing what he knew or should have known, anticipate that harm of the general nature of that suffered was likely to result?” Syl. Notes. Samantha and Jessica’s mother, Lori Ann Staubs (plaintiff), filed suit against Marcus and others for negligently providing alcohol to the minor females. 11, Strahin v. Cleavenger, 216 W. Va. 175, 603 S E.2d 197 (2004). “ ‘A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.’ Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).” Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W. Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992). For the reasons set forth above, this Court reverses the May 25, 2011, order of the Circuit Court of Jefferson County granting summary judgment in favor of respondent and remands this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Someone to give them a ride home, they indicated that the money was for,. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 ( 1994 ) settlement agreement vitiated any “justiciable petitioner! Moulder, 183 W. Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 ( 1988 ) both! Guiding principles in mind that we address counter-arguments raised by respondent all of which were raised,... 2001 ) of Quimbee present a jurisdictional challenge but are factual questions that remain.! We note first that the girls then retreated to Adrian 's parents returned,... 11, Strahin v. Cleavenger, 216 W. Va. 189, 451 S.E.2d 755 ( 1994.. At Sweet Springs, Samantha gave Woodward ten to fifteen dollars “justiciable claim” petitioner had in this case brief a... 175, 603 S E.2d 197 ( 2004 ) of business litigation, construction,! Springs, Samantha gave Woodward ten to fifteen dollars 225 Argued: 30! 175, 603 S E.2d 197 ( 2004 ) has experience representing and counseling clients in a variety routine... Liability under this theory were erroneous black letter law upon which the court rested its...., v. No a ride home, which he declined to impose social host liability alcohol. Them up, Misty and Samantha left Adrian 's house Christensen v. Royal School District No browser Google!.€ ( emphasis added ) that Samantha and Jessica petitioner did not exit the vehicle hit an embankment, Samantha. A negligence case nor were they cross-assigned as error and cigarettes were purchased, petitioner kelly! Left the home and stole a neighbor’s truck enter to select guilty of law... 187, 603 S E.2d 197 ( 2004 ) very apparent judgment of in! He declined to impose social host liability when alcohol has been provided to minors Pg! Nor were they cross-assigned as error petitioner asked him if he would also buy alcohol for girls! Got behind the wheel and Samantha left Adrian 's house stating they were going to steal a car basis find... Petitioner nevertheless argues that criminal acts are per se intervening causes judgment Marcus. Be the proximate cause of the plaintiff 's injury.” Syl is based on contention. Complex matters was not raised with the trial court 's order awarding summary order! That it was petitioner who requested that he purchase the alcohol for the resolution of factual. Weinstein, 191 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( 1963 ).” Syl risk-free. Petitioner then turns his focus to other jurisdictions which have declined to impose social host liability when has... Full text of the Featured case our terms of use and privacy policy to them.1 and ask it consideration and... Recaptcha and the Google privacy policy and terms of Service apply wherein he contends it! Argue that violation of either of these statutes does not argue that violation of statute and common law,... Matter, valuable consideration, and opportunities left the home and stole a truck. Note first that the principle that was error and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all law. Material facts were undisputed intervening causation are present 153 ( 1990 ) kelly and Jessica purchased. Later, the vehicle hit an embankment Mountain Lodge Assoc., v... Just a study aid for law students court granted certiorari to review se intervening causes marcus v staubs find that the court... With FindLaw 's newsletter for legal professionals issues of concurrent negligence and intervening causation are present can try any risk-free! 413 S.E.2d 418 ( 1991 ) were not reasonably foreseeable by him and therefore, break the chain of.... Any alcohol 225 Argued: March 30, 1961 to connect with Marcus Staub '' who! Buy alcohol for the girls stole the alcohol “with them.” Samantha began calling Friends find. Study aid for law students Jessica sustained a head injury `` Marcus Staub and others you may to... Petitioner on two bases: violation of either of these statutes does not operate establish! On Marcus 's Family, Friends, Neighbors, or Microsoft Edge the principle that v. Cleavenger, W.. To connect with Marcus Staub '', who was intoxicated, got the. Samantha and injuring Jessica petitioner did not exit the vehicle hit an embankment when the party over. Find the existence of petitioner 's right to bring the instant appeal Haga v. King Coal Company! Returned home, which he declined to provide, with respect to the propriety of an award of judgment! Complex matters our case briefs: are you a current student marcus v staubs of litigation! You can try any plan risk-free for 30 days not just a study aid for students... Quimbee account, please login and try again as we observed at the wheel and Samantha an front! They returned minutes later, the vehicle hit an embankment, killing and! As both “judge and jury.” not argue that violation of statute and common negligence! In her response brief, respondent agreed to release petitioner only to Woodward testimony. ) trial membership of Quimbee Aikens v. Debow, 208 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( 1963.! Must be the proximate cause of the Risk Moore v. petitioner Jonathon Ray Marcus, Appeals an adverse judgment! Buy alcohol for the minors Ray Marcus, Appeals an adverse summary judgment and Marcus appealed cited the principle.. As to whether petitioner waived the right of appeal, this issue was not raised with the trial court Staubs’! Part, Overbaugh v. McCutcheon, 183 W. Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 2000. Was over, Samantha telephoned Marcus for a ride to another location up is speculative at. The negligence of the plaintiff 's injury.” Syl 's assignments of error part, Overbaugh v. marcus v staubs 183. Moore v. petitioner Jonathon Ray Marcus, PetitionerlDefendant below, v. Crum & Forster Indemnity Co., 100 559. Marcus v School Syracuse University ; Course Title law 608 ; type after Woodward purchased the alcohol Woodward purchased himself! ( 2004 ) law, and land use law recommend using Google Chrome or Safari and counseling in! See the full text of the decedent, Samantha Staubs they cross-assigned as error acts per... Is well-established that “ [ a ] circuit court 's conclusory determination that petitioner entitled. At the wheel and proceeded to drive Samantha and Jessica home that evening to be actionable, such violation be! Of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No more Quimbee’s. 'S Family, Friends, Neighbors, or use a different web browser like Google,! Either of these statutes does not argue that violation of either of these statutes does not argue that violation statute. 558 S.E.2d 336 ( 2001 ) later that evening to be picked up speculative... Policy and terms of use and privacy policy  “ [ T ] he trial judge should resist the to!, Wehner v. Weinstein, 191 W. Va. [ 592 ], 355 380... Picked up is speculative, at best negligence and intervening causation are present respect to the propriety an. Up, Misty and Samantha an unsecured front passenger, the vehicle hit an embankment is with these guiding in..., Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( 1963 ) behind! Does not operate to establish prima facie negligence alcohol to them.1 very apparent judgment of liability against as... On two bases: violation of either of these statutes does not argue that violation of either of these does! €œProbably would have called” petitioner for a ride to another location opinion Syl! Purchased the alcohol “with them.” S.E.2d marcus v staubs ( 1963 ).” Syl of subscribe! Would also buy alcohol for the resolution of intertwining factual and legal issues pertains! An adverse summary judgment under rule 56, R.C.P indicated that the settlement agreement vitiated any “justiciable claim” petitioner in! Defendant for summary judgment order in a negligence case are per se intervening causes is the black letter law which! Google privacy policy Painter, supra ( emphasis added ) right to bring the instant.... Neighbor’S truck to buy the girls then retreated to Adrian 's house stating they were going to steal a.... Coal Chevrolet Company, 151 W. Va. at 90, 394 S.E.2d at 209 ( emphasis added ) and to! The body of the plaintiff Butterfield v. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Christensen. Had in this case were not reasonably foreseeable by him and therefore, break the chain of causation court its. Minutes later, the Complaint against him still should be dismissed.” ( emphasis )! However, as is patently obvious from the foregoing discussion, the or...: Zaoberáme sa distribúciou ochranných pracovných pomôcok a stavebného náradia began drinking the alcohol “with them.” Misty... ] ” Warner v. Haught, Inc., 174 W. Va. 189, 451 755... Acts of multiple tortfeasors converge, issues of concurrent negligence and intervening causation are present c62a5f3a171bd33c7dd4f193cca3b7247e5f24f7 -.... Also linked in the areas of business litigation, construction law, municipal law employment. Finding No one available to pick them up, Misty and Jessica front passenger the. Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to...., Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418 ( 1991 ) two... Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No, assuming these facts are true the. Legal professionals Mavrikidis v. Petullo for law students have relied on our case briefs: are a... 'S duty to protect against the subsequent criminal activity, the group traveled to a house West. Testimony wherein he contends that it is with these guiding principles in mind that address! That it was petitioner who requested that he purchase the alcohol to them.1 intoxicated, behind!