Connie and her 7-year-old daughter were driving to purchase a calf for the daughter to raise on their ranch.
On the way, Connie's car collided with P's car. P sustained injuries diagnosed as muscle strain. Connie died.
15 months later, P started experiencing severe pain and had to undergo surgeries to fuse vertebrae together.
P sued Connie's husband saying that Connie and her husband were engaged in a joint venture when Connie went to pick up her daughter's calf.
Procedural History:
Trial court granted summary judgment for D.
WY Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
When are parties said to be acting in a joint venture?
Holding/Rule:
The four elements of a joint enterprise are defined as…
An agreement, express of implied, among the members of the group
A common purpose to be carried out by the group
A community of pecuniary interest in that purpose, among the members
An equal right to a voice in the direction of the enterprise, which gives an equal right of control.
Reasoning:
In Holliday, father and son went on a camping trip. Son shot someone. Father was not liable under a joint venture theory since there was no pecuniary, commercial, or business aspect to the hunting trip.
The court chose to focus on the pecuniary interest prong in order to draw a narrow definition of joint venture.
D did not ordinarily have any ownership interest in the cattle that the daughters raised and owned. The livestock was given to the children who got the profits from the sales.
Thus, only the daughter had a pecuniary interest in the trip to pick up the calf.
