Opinion ID: 2330474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Duty of Driver

Text: A driver owes a duty of care to her [or his] passengers because it is foreseeable that they may be injured if, through inattention or otherwise, the driver involves the car she [or he] is operating in a collision. [9] Almost forty-five years ago, this Court held that a minor who operates a motor vehicle on the highways of Delaware will be held to the same standard of care and must accord his [or her] own passengers the same diligence and protection which is required of an adult motorist under similar circumstances. [10] The following year, this Court recognized an important correlative principle: One riding as a passenger in a motor vehicle . . . has the right to assume that the driver will exercise reasonable care and caution and is under no duty to supervise the driving . . . in the absence of knowledge that the driver is unfit or incompetent to drive. [11] Pipher argues that after Beisel grabbed the steering wheel initially, Parsell was on notice that a dangerous situation could reoccur in the truck. Pipher further argues that once Parsell had notice of a possibly dangerous situation, he had a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect his passengers from that harm. Finally, Pipher concludes that Parsell was negligent when he kept driving without attempting to remove, or at least address, that risk. In a similar case, the Supreme Court of Vermont held a driver was liable for damages resulting from the passenger seizing the driver's arm. [12] In that case, a drunken passenger known for being a playful fellow, and having previously attempted to shake hands with the driver of the vehicle over the course of fifteen minutes, then seized the arm of the driver, causing the vehicle to collide with a farm wagon. The Vermont Court held that the knowledge the passenger was a playful fellow and had in the course of the ride persisted in trying to shake hands with the driver should have forecast the peril of an accident to an operator of reasonable prudence and vigilance. [13] In such cases, the driver is expected to make a reasonable attempt to prevent the passenger from taking such actions again. In general, where the actions of a passenger that cause an accident are not foreseeable, there is no negligence attributable to the driver. [14] But, when actions of a passenger that interfere with the driver's safe operation of the motor vehicle are foreseeable, the failure to prevent such conduct may be a breach of the driver's duty to either other passengers or to the public. [15] Under the circumstances of this case, a reasonable jury could find that Parsell breached his duty to protect Pipher from Beisel by preventing Beisel from grabbing the steering wheel a second time.