Larry D. Jr. and Pamela Pyles v. Mason Co. Fair, Inc., 806 S.E.2d 806

At the 2013 Mason County Fair, paid attendee Larry Pyles was assaulted and suffered traumatic brain injury; plaintiffs sued Mason County Fair, Inc. (Fair Board) and later added Mason County Commission (Commission).
Plaintiffs sought to amend to allege a joint venture between the Commission and the Fair Board to impose vicarious liability on the Commission and to argue the Commission owed an elevated duty to fairgoers.
The Commission owned the fairgrounds and had a 2006 usage agreement granting the Fair Board the right to control, maintain, improve, and utilize the grounds; the Fair Board is a private non-profit and paid for improvements; the Commission received no fees.
The circuit court denied leave to amend as futile, concluding either the West Virginia Governmental Tort Claims and Insurance Reform Act or the public duty doctrine barred the claim; the court certified three questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court reformulated the certified questions to: (1) whether such an agreement constitutes a joint venture; (2) whether Fair Board workers are Commission employees under the Act; and (3) whether the Commission owes a special duty to fair attendees beyond the general public duty.
The Court held: (1) the agreement did not create a joint venture (no profit-sharing and no coequal control); (2) gate workers were not Commission employees under the Act; (3) the Commission owed only the general public duty (public duty doctrine applies); thus amendment was futile.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the usage agreement created a joint venture between Commission and Fair Board	Pyles: the agreement and benefit to the Commission created a joint venture, making Commission vicariously liable	Commission: no profit-sharing, no coequal control, Fair Board non-profit; not a commercial joint venture	No — no joint venture (no agreement to share profits/losses; Commission lacked operational control)
Whether individuals hired by Fair Board to work gates were Commission employees under the Act	Pyles: gate workers are agents/employees of Commission (via joint venture theory)	Commission: it did not hire, select, or control gate workers; they are not Commission employees	No — gate workers are not Commission "employees" under W.Va. Code §29-12A-3(a)
Whether Commission owed a special duty to fair attendees (beyond public duty)	Pyles: joint venture (or other theory) imposed an elevated duty to protect attendees	Commission: owed only the general duty to the public; public duty doctrine bars individualized duty absent special relationship	No — only the general duty to the public; no special relationship shown

Gallapoo v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 197 W.Va. 172, 475 S.E.2d 172 (W. Va. 1996) (appellate review of certified questions is de novo)
Kincaid v. Mangum, 189 W.Va. 404, 432 S.E.2d 74 (W. Va. 1993) (Court may reformulate certified questions)
Price v. Halstead, 177 W.Va. 592, 355 S.E.2d 380 (W. Va. 1987) (joint venture defined as association to carry out single business enterprise for profit)
Armor v. Lantz, 207 W.Va. 672, 535 S.E.2d 737 (W. Va. 2000) (joint venture principles; necessity of profit/loss sharing and control)
West Virginia State Police v. Hughes, 238 W.Va. 406, 796 S.E.2d 193 (W. Va. 2017) (public duty doctrine: government owes duty to public at large, not to specific individuals absent special relationship)
Hutchison v. City of Huntington, 198 W.Va. 139, 479 S.E.2d 649 (W. Va. 1996) (immunity rulings should be resolved early; immunity spares defendants trial burden)
Zirkle v. Elkins Road Pub. Serv. Dist., 221 W.Va. 409, 655 S.E.2d 155 (W. Va. 2007) (political subdivisions not vicariously liable for negligence of non-employees except as specified in statute)
Glick v. Koenig, 766 F.2d 265 (7th Cir. 1985) (denial to amend is proper where amendment would be futile)