Chappell v. Wenholz
247 P.3d 192
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- On May 8, 2005, Chappell and Romano were confronted outside a Tempe hotel bar by Wenholz, Bean, and two friends; the groups argued and were separated by security.
- After the argument, a member of Wenholz's group punched Chappell; Romano defended Chappell and was punched from behind, both men collapsing with injuries.
- Bartender Alfred Medina witnessed four men repeatedly punching and kicking the two plaintiffs as they lay on the ground.
- On March 26, 2007, Chappell and Romano sued the hotel, Wenholz, Bean, Martinez, and Keller for injuries; the hotel defense was later dismissed; Martinez had defaulted, Keller was not served.
- Wenholz moved for partial summary judgment seeking release from joint liability under A.R.S. § 12-2506(D)(1); the trial court granted the motion, and plaintiffs appealed.
- The appellate court reviews de novo whether acting in concert under § 12-2506(D)(1) supports joint liability, reversing the grant and remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a conscious agreement to injure | Chappell: evidence shows continued hitting after ground contact implies agreement | Wenholz: no pre-arranged agreement; only participation in fight | Sufficient evidence exists of a conscious agreement to injure |
| Whether participation plus continuing assault supports acting in concert | Chappell: joins with companions to inflict injuries on plaintiffs | Wenholz: no prior agreement; continuation of fight insufficient alone | Yes; jury could find concerted intentional tort after first punch |
| Whether the trial court properly granted partial summary judgment on joint liability | Chappell: there is evidence Wenholz acted in concert with others | Wenholz: no conscious agreement; insufficient for joint liability | Reversed; jury must decide joint liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Mein ex rel. Mein v. Cook, 219 Ariz. 96, 193 P.3d 790 (App.2008) (prima facie joint liability requires knowing agreement and active participation)
- Dawson v. Withycombe, 216 Ariz. 84, 163 P.3d 1034 (App.2007) (conspiracy may be inferred from conduct under Restatement principles)
- Lamb v. Peck, 183 Conn. 470, 441 A.2d 14 (1981) (evidence of joint participation in harm supports joint liability)