F: C. Steinle (D) was taking her daughter and niece to purchase a calf for the daughter to raise, D negligently collided with P’s vehicle. D died. Later, P began experiencing pain and required surgery. P filed a claim against the representative of W. Steinle (D), who had died in the interim. P seeks to impute C. Steinle's negligence to W. Steinle, arguing that he is vicariously liable for her negligence because her business trip to pick up daughter’s calf was part of a joint venture w/ W. Steinle.
I: Whether D is vicariously liable for the neg. of another under a theory of joint venture if the joint venture was not motivated by profit
R: D is vicariously not liable for the neg. of another under a theory of joint venture if the joint venture was not motivated by
A: C. Steinle was not in a joint venture w/ W. Steinle.
1. There is ample evidence that D was going to purchase the calf as a pet for her daughter.
2. although it is true that daughter's calf and other pets were often sold, the proceeds from such sale did not go to the account
of D and W. Steinle, but to the account of the daughter.
In sum, D and W. Steinle were not in a joint venture b/c there was no profit motive to their actions.
Co: 4 elements of joint enterprise (A PICture)
i) an agreement among the members of the group
ii) a common Purpose
iii) community of pecuniary Interest
iv) an equal right of Control of the enterprise
Support us by:
•Visiting: http://www.fbdetox.com to rid yourself of that social media addiction.
•Checking out our amazing store on Etsy: http://www.bohobuttons.com