Connection lost
Server error
Pipher v. Parsell Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A driver was sued after a passenger grabbed the steering wheel and caused a crash. The court held the driver could be liable because the same passenger had grabbed the wheel moments earlier, making the second, injury-causing act potentially foreseeable and creating a jury question on negligence.
Legal Significance: A driver’s duty of care extends to protecting passengers from the foreseeable, dangerous actions of other passengers. An initial dangerous act by a passenger can make a subsequent, similar act foreseeable, creating a duty for the driver to take reasonable preventative measures.
Pipher v. Parsell Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Kristyn Pipher, was a passenger in a pickup truck driven by the defendant, Johnathan Parsell. Johnene Beisel was also a passenger. All three were sixteen years old. While traveling at 55 mph, Beisel unexpectedly grabbed the steering wheel, causing the truck to swerve onto the shoulder. Parsell regained control but took no action to address Beisel’s conduct; instead, he and Beisel laughed about the incident. Approximately thirty seconds later, Beisel again yanked the steering wheel. This time, the truck veered off the road, went down an embankment, and struck a tree, causing injuries to Pipher. At trial, Parsell acknowledged several preventative measures he could have taken after the first incident, such as admonishing Beisel or pulling over. The trial court granted judgment as a matter of law for Parsell, ruling that he had no duty to act because it was reasonable to assume the conduct would not be repeated.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a driver have a duty to take reasonable preventative measures to protect passengers after an initial dangerous act by another passenger makes a recurrence of that act foreseeable?
Yes. The court reversed the judgment as a matter of law, holding Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a driver have a duty to take reasonable preventative measures to protect passengers after an initial dangerous act by another passenger makes a recurrence of that act foreseeable?
Conclusion
This case establishes that a driver's duty of care can encompass controlling Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud e
Legal Rule
While a driver is generally not liable for the sudden, unforeseeable acts Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Legal Analysis
The Supreme Court of Delaware began its analysis by affirming the general Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu f
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A driver’s duty of care to passengers includes protecting them from