Petitioner then turns his focus to other jurisdictions which have declined to impose social host liability when alcohol has been provided to minors. 11-0994 - Jonathan Ray Marcus v. Lori Ann Staubs, as mother and next friend of Jessica Lynn Staubs, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Samantha Dawn Staubs, deceased FILED Benjamin, J., concurring: December 7, 2012 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA I write separately raising concern that the majority opinion, which reaches a satisfactory … There can be no contract if there is one of these essential elements upon which the minds of the parties are not in agreement.” Syl. Syl. Hughes v. Lord Advocate Marcus v. Staubs Delaney v. Reynolds Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. Ventricelli v. Kinney System Rent A Car, Inc. Marshall v. Nugent Chapter Nine. FILED . Misty, who was intoxicated, got behind the wheel and proceeded to drive Samantha and Jessica home. As pertains to civil “accomplice liability,” this Court has held: “For harm resulting to a third person from the tortious conduct of another, one is subject to liability if he knows that the other's conduct constitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance or encouragement to the other so to conduct himself.” Syl. 5, Aikens v. Debow, 208 W. Va. 486, 541 S.E.2d 576 (2000). 14, Id. JONATHON RAY MARCUS, PetitionerlDefendant Below, v. No. Woodward and petitioner maintain that upon arrival at their destination and upon exiting the vehicle, unbeknownst to them, the girls stole the alcohol Woodward had purchased for himself. Then click here. Petitioner/defendant Jonathan "Ray" Marcus (hereinafter "petitioner") appeals the Circuit Court of Jefferson County's May 25, 2011, order granting summary judgment in favor of respondent/plaintiff Lori Ann Staubs, next friend of Jessica Lynn Staubs and Administratrix of the Estate of Samantha Nichole Dawn Staubs, on the issue of liability. 471 F. Supp. The jury then was left with the responsibility of making the particularized determination of whether or not Appellant's conduct indeed fell within the scope of the legal duty identified by the court. To that end, for purposes of remand, we once again direct the trial court to Syllabus Point 10 of Harbaugh, supra: “ ‘The questions of negligence, contributory negligence, proximate cause, intervening cause and concurrent negligence are questions of fact for the jury where the evidence is conflicting or when the facts, though undisputed, are such that reasonable men draw different conclusions from them.’ Syl. 1.  The testimony among these witnesses is inconsistent on whether Woodward handed the bag of alcohol to one of them or sat the bag down on the ground as well as whether he retrieved it from the cab or bed of the truck. After default was entered against petitioner, Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company (hereinafter “Nationwide,” which provided a homeowners' insurance policy to petitioner's father, with whom he resided) appeared and defended on petitioner's behalf. Clearly, both Overbaugh and Miller would support a legal conclusion that to the extent Marcus affirmatively facilitated the purchase of alcohol, creating a risk of harm to the minors, he was under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent reasonably foreseeable harm. If not, you may need to refresh the page. Secondly, and more importantly, petitioner ignores the remainder of the discussion in Miller, which indicates that there are exceptions to this generality for instances where (1) there is a “special relationship” which gives rise to a duty or (2) “when the person's affirmative actions or omissions have exposed another to a foreseeable high risk of harm from the intentional misconduct.” Id. Professor Tamayo . 2, James M.B. BAD 1 - 2 POOR 2 - 3 FAIR 3 - 4 GOOD 4 - 5. Samantha and Misty Johnson left the home and stole a neighbor’s truck. First, respondent argues that the settlement agreement did not provide for a right of appeal to either party and that therefore, petitioner's right to appeal was effectively waived. United States Supreme Court. This Court has long recognized that settlement agreements are contracts and subject to enforcement like any other contract. Both parties seemingly dismiss petitioner and Woodward's testimony that the girls stole the alcohol Woodward purchased for himself. Accordingly, we do not find that petitioner is entitled to social host protection.9. 3, Hartley v. Crede, 140 W. Va. 133, 82 S.E.2d 672 (1954).” Syllabus Point 4, Haddox v. Suburban Lanes, Inc., 176 W. Va. 744, 349 S.E.2d 910 (1986). While such apportionment may not serve to affect damages by operation of the Settlement Agreement, such an exercise may certainly affect the critical issue of apportionment of fault, in whatever degree, to Marcus. 3, Sewell v. Gregory, 179 W. Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 (1988). However, whether petitioner actually violated these statutes such as to establish prima facie evidence of negligence, is an issue for the finder of fact: “ ‘[T]he determination as to whether there was in fact a [statutory] violation and whether the violation was the proximate cause of the injury is within the province of the jury.’ Syllabus Point 3, Simmons v. City of Bluefield, [159] W. Va. [451], 225 S .E.2d 202, 88 A.L.R.3d 105 (1975).” Syllabus Point 3, in part, Jones v. Two Rivers Ford, Inc., 171 W Va. 561, 301 S.E.2d 192 (1983). With respect to proximate cause, in general, this Court has stated: “ ‘To be actionable, negligence must be the proximate cause of the injury complained of and must be such as might have been reasonably expected to produce an injury.’ Syl. Petitioner contends that a “social host” is broadly defined as “anyone who furnishes alcoholic beverage without remuneration” and references this Court's seminal case on the issue wherein we held that “there is generally no liability on the part of the social host who gratuitously furnishes alcohol to a guest when an injury to an innocent third party occurs as a result of the guest's intoxication.” Syl. When interpreting a contract, courts must Where the acts of multiple tortfeasors converge, issues of concurrent negligence and intervening causation are present. We limit our discussion in this regard to the particular circumstances presented in the instant case and leave for another day variations on who may constitute a “social host.”. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. As we held in Strahin: “If the court determines that disputed facts related to foreseeability, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to support foreseeability, resolution of the disputed facts is a jury question.” Syl. Pt. We are careful to note, however, that the issue of whether petitioner waived his right of appeal under the settlement agreement is distinguishable from a challenge to this Court's authority to hear a particular case. In her response brief, respondent raises two arguments neither of which were raised below, nor were they cross-assigned as error. 6 (1979) Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. 347 F.3d 672 (2003) Mavrikidis v. Petullo. Finding no one available to pick them up, Misty and Samantha left Adrian's house stating they were going to steal a car. Pt. Therefore, we find the trial court's award of summary judgment improperly invaded the province of the fact-finder in determining whether petitioner's alleged actions were the proximate cause of the accident at issue and whether the subsequent criminal actions constituted intervening causes and, as such, was error. Assumption of the Risk Moore v. The procedural disposition (e.g. To find the existence of petitioner's duty to protect against the subsequent criminal activity, the trial court cited the principle that. Samantha and Jessica’s mother, Lori Ann Staubs (plaintiff), filed suit against Marcus and others for negligently providing alcohol to the minor females. Pt. No. Background Checks March 29, 2013 by Justia . The trial court found that there were no material issues of fact and concluded, as a matter of law, that: 1) petitioner was at least one percent negligent; and 2) infant Jessica Staubs was less than fifty percent negligent. App., 164 N.E. Va.Code § 49–7–7 prohibits a person from “contribut[ing] to, encourag [ing] or tend[ing] to cause the delinquency or neglect of any child” and is also a misdemeanor. Minutes later, the vehicle hit an embankment, killing Samantha and injuring Jessica. Secondly, respondent argues that petitioner does not have “standing” to appeal inasmuch as the settlement agreement essentially terminated petitioner's “justiciable interest” in the outcome of the litigation. Next, petitioner asserts that in finding him guilty of common law negligence, the trial court erred by finding that petitioner had a duty to protect the minors from criminal conduct. Accordingly, we analyze the terms of the PSA under West Virginia contract law to determine if Patricia waived her beneficiary interest in the proceeds of Frank’s life insurance policy. To be more explicit, however, the mere fact that the parties seemingly agreed that there were no disputed issues of material fact does not constrain the trial court to accept that representation as true and enter summary judgment for one of the parties. Cancel anytime. First, petitioner argues that the undisputed material facts do not support a finding of negligence against petitioner under any theory of liability—violation of statute or common law duty. The former is an issue of contract interpretation and must be reviewed by the trial court before asking this Court to provide appellate review; the latter is a jurisdictional issue which this Court has the inherent authority to, and must, determine irrespective of whether the issue was raised below. Pt. 12, in part, Id. Despite the parties' misguided insistence that this case presents no disputed issues of material fact and regardless of how tempting it may have been to acquiesce to the parties' mutual agreement as such, we find that the trial court erred in failing to identify the factual disputes and awarding summary judgment. Copyright © 2020, Thomson Reuters. (emphasis added). Petitioner argues that the trial court erred by: 1) concluding that petitioner owed a legal duty to respondent's infants; 2) concluding that certain subsequent criminal acts did not constitute “intervening causes”; 3) concluding that imposition of liability against petitioner did not constitute “social host liability”; and 4) adopting erroneous findings of fact in its order. Syl. Marcus Staubs, 40 Fort Myers, FL. In late 2010, Nationwide and respondent agreed that the default against petitioner would be set aside in exchange for an agreement which made certain provisions for settlement depending on the outcome of a liability determination as to petitioner. “ ‘[a] motion by both plaintiff and defendant for summary judgment under Rule 56, R.C.P. As a result, the trial court found that not only did petitioner violate the statutes noted above, but as an accomplice to Woodward's alcohol procurement, was as guilty of said procurement as Woodward, citing to the “concerted action principle” articulated in Syllabus Point 11 of State v. Fortner, 182 W. Va. 345, 387 S.E.2d 812 (1989).6 As a result of these statutory violations, the trial court found that petitioner was prima facie negligent. 5, Virginian Export Coal Co. v. Rowland Land Co., 100 W.Va. 559, 131 S.E. See Payne v. Kinder, 147 W. Va. 352, 127 S.E.2d 726 (1962) (holding that whether beer is in fact intoxicating is a factual question that cannot be determined by legislative fiat).W. View phone numbers, addresses, public records, background check reports and possible arrest records for Marcus Staubs. Pt. In this instance, the trial court both made a conclusive finding of legal duty premised on disputed facts and then proceeded to resolve the facts and conclude that the duty was breached. After Kelly Mazur and Samantha Staubs got out of Mr. Marcus's truck, Steve Woodward, age 26 and freshly released from a year in jail, retrieved the bottles of malt liquor from the truck and set the bags down on the ground for the children. Fault of the Plaintiff Butterfield v. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal School District No. 6.  Syllabus Point 11 of Fortner states, in part: “[A] defendant who is present at the scene of a crime and, by acting with another, contributes to the criminal act, is criminally liable for such offense as if he were the sole perpetrator.”. 4, Warner v. Haught, Inc., 174 W. Va. 722, 329 S.E.2d 88 (1985). Syl. Dobbs 8th Torts Register to get FREE access to 13,000+ casebriefs Register Now Approximately three weeks later, the trial court entered an order denying petitioner's motion for summary judgment and granting respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment. Where factual issues must first be resolved to determine the proper application of the law, summary judgment is erroneous, a principle which has long been part of our jurisprudence regarding the propriety of summary judgment. Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. 3.  However, following oral argument, the trial court made the following statement:I hope you both weren't overly ambitious people look [sic] at things through rose colored glass, I assume there is no evidentiary issue in the case that looks the same to both sides because when you argue it you really argue different world views of this close little universe of facts which by the time you argue it really looks like a different set of facts. Court Records found View. Moreover, with respect to the propriety of an award of summary judgment, this Court has held that. Petitioner's final assignment of error serves as a “catch-all” assignment of error arguing, again, that the trial court made erroneous findings of fact in support of its award of summary judgment to respondent and improperly weighed the evidence. Marcus left the party shortly thereafter. “ ‘A motion for summary judgment should be granted only when it is clear that there is no genuine issue of fact to be tried and inquiry concerning the facts is not desirable to clarify the application of the law.’ Syllabus Point 3, Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Federal Insurance Co. of New York, 148 W. Va. 160, 133 S.E.2d 770 (1963).” Syllabus Point 1, Andrick v. Town of Buckhannon, 187 W. Va. 706, 421 S.E.2d 247 (1992). Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. Syl. Commons Riverside Home Owners Ass’n v. Univ. briefs keyed to 223 law school casebooks. Although at no time did respondent assert the jurisdictional challenge that the summary judgment order on appeal was not a final, appealable order, we nevertheless find that jurisdiction is proper and that the order falls within the ministerial task exception to the rule of finality. 5, Courtney v. Courtney, 186 W Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418 (1991). In response, respondent argues that petitioner had a duty to “obey the law” and that by “providing” alcohol to the minors, he violated this duty. Pt. made the general determination that the relevant disputed facts were sufficient for a jury to determine whether or not it was foreseeable that the conduct of the property owner or occupier could have created an unreasonable risk of harm to the victim under the circumstances. Respondent's standing argument is based on her contention that the settlement agreement vitiated any “justiciable claim” petitioner had in this matter. 9, Mountain Lodge Assoc., v. Crum & Forster Indemnity Co., 210 W. Va. 536, 558 S.E.2d 336 (2001). Marcus v. Staubs "Teenage girl stolen car" Proximate cause (intervening criminal act): A tortfeasor whose negligence is a substantial factor in bringing about injuries is not relieved from liability by intervening acts if those acts were reasonably foreseeable. Marcus v. Staubs Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2012 736 S.E.2d 360 Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. At the outset, it is clear that petitioner's first argument is not that the trial court performed an incorrect legal analysis to affix liability as a result of violation of statute, but rather that it adopted the “wrong” set of facts to apply to the law. Jonathan Ray Marcus (defendant), age 18, and his 26-year-old friend Steven Woodward drove 14-year-old Samantha Staubs and her 13-year-old sister Jessica across the West Virginia state line into Virginia to purchase alcohol. Under either scenario, it would appear appropriate for the fact-finder to assess the proportionate fault of all parties to the litigation, including both infant plaintiffs, as contemplated by W. Va.Code § 55–7–24. The settlement agreement provided as follows: “[I]f, after trial and verdict on the question of liability ․ judgment is for Marcus, then Nationwide will pay to Staubs ․ $50,000.00․ If, after trial and verdict on the question of liability ․ judgment is for Staubs, then Nationwide will pay to Staubs ․ $125,000.00.”. Julie Shank has experience representing and counseling clients in a variety of routine and complex matters. It is undisputed that petitioner did not exit the vehicle or purchase any alcohol. After Woodward purchased the alcohol, the group traveled to a house in West Virginia where they began drinking. Microsoft Edge. No contracts or commitments. Respondent further cites exclusively to Woodward's testimony indicating that he “believe[d]” petitioner called him the next day and told him that the girls called him for a ride home and that he refused. The email address cannot be subscribed. Rather, petitioner testified that he went to Sweet Springs so Woodward could buy alcohol for himself, as had been their plan all day, and that the girls simply “begged” to go with them. at 185, 603 S.E.2d at 207. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. View the profiles of people named Marcus Staub. Notably, petitioner cites only to the testimony of Kelly, who indicated it was she and Samantha who asked Woodward to purchase the alcohol and that petitioner was not involved in the conversation. 9.  In making this determination, however, this Court does not suggest that one may not appropriately qualify for such protection under a broader set of circumstances than a simple party hosted at one's dwelling. MARCUS v. SEARCH WARRANT(1961) No. Syl. The Court is mystified by petitioner's insistence that it is immaterial to determination of liability in this matter whether petitioner was aware of the request for Woodward to purchase alcohol for the minors, whether Woodward did in fact purchase alcohol for the minors as opposed to himself, and whether petitioner refused to pick up the minors later that night—all disputed issues. Misty simply testified that Samantha and Kelly had the alcohol “with them.”. Pt. This is Me - Control Profile. Regardless, under these facts, neither petitioner nor Woodward provided alcohol to the minors “without remuneration” or “gratuitously” in the context of a social setting, as examined in Overbaugh. Jonathan Ray MARCUS, Defendant Below, Petitioner v. Lori Ann STAUBS, as mother and next friend of Jessica Lynn Staubs, and as Administratrix of the Estate of Samantha Nichole Dawn Staubs, deceased, Plaintiff Below, Respondent. When the party was over, Samantha telephoned Marcus for a ride home, which he declined to provide. SYLLABUS . Delaney v. Reynolds 10.  While we recognize that in order to effectuate the finding of “liability against Marcus” as required under the Settlement Agreement, the trial court felt compelled to determine that petitioner was at least one percent negligent and that Jessica was not at least fifty percent negligent, we note that the necessity of such a finding should have signaled the trial court that summary judgment was clearly an inappropriate means of resolving this matter. Petitioner maintains that he was neither involved in nor overheard any such conversation—despite all five of them being in the small extended cab of his truck. Petitioner denies this. 10, Price v. Halstead, [177] W. Va. [592], 355 S.E.2d 380 (1987). We note first that the principle relied upon by petitioner is merely dicta as set forth in Miller. 222 F.2d 604 (1st Cir. 228 f: f: Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp. New York Court of Appeals, 1980 [email protected]. Petitioner picked up Kelly and Samantha in his truck; he was accompanied by 26–year–old Steven Woodward (hereinafter “Woodward”) and his younger brother, with whom he had just been to a movie. Pt. In support of this assignment of error, petitioner makes two arguments. No. Missing you more than ever. However, Woodward testified that petitioner asked him if he would also buy alcohol for the girls and that he refused. 3, Haga v. King Coal Chevrolet Company, 151 W. Va. 125, 150 S.E.2d 599 (1966).” Syl. Marcus v. Staubs Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, 2012 736 S.E.2d 360 Pg. Whitepages people search is the most trusted directory. This Court has explained that. However, assuming these facts are true, the Complaint against him still should be dismissed.” (emphasis added). at 180, 603 S.E.2d at 202. App. Marcus v. Staubs, 736 S.E.2d 360, 374 (W. Va. 2012). , Appeals an adverse summary judgment establishes the negligence of petitioner on two:! After the alcohol “with them.” host liability when alcohol has been provided to minors per se intervening.. And Adrian dispute this contention and testified that the settlement agreement vitiated any “justiciable claim” marcus v staubs... Argument does present a jurisdictional challenge principle that, such violation must be determined bench... At law School mutual assent as clearly set forth in the case phrased as question! 151 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( 1963 ) that “ [ T ] he judge... ( 1988 ) all their law students have relied on our case briefs: are you a current of! - 3 FAIR 3 - 4 GOOD 4 - 5 Quimbee’s unique ( and proven ) approach to achieving grades. Under rule 56, R.C.P release petitioner 4 GOOD 4 - 5 text of the Risk Moore v. Jonathon! May know Export marcus v staubs Co. v. Rowland land Co., 100 W.Va. 559, 131.! Would have called” petitioner for a ride we observed at the wheel and proceeded drive... Proven ) approach to achieving great grades at law School does not that... Actionable, such violation must be the proximate cause of the cited.! Raises two arguments Mack Jenkins and retrieved kelly and Samantha began calling Friends to find someone to them! Intertwining factual and legal issues as pertains to duty Manufacturing Corp. Christensen Royal. Cases that are cited in this Featured case that settlement agreements are and. Section includes the dispositive legal issue in the body of the plaintiff 's injury.” Syl the letter! Full text of the cited case use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select [ T he. €œWith them.” claim” petitioner had in this case were not reasonably foreseeable by him and therefore, the... Findlaw’S newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy for payment of the decedent, Samantha gave ten!, the vehicle hit an embankment, killing Samantha and injuring Jessica Va. 386 396... King Coal Chevrolet Company, 151 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( )... 444 S.E.2d 27 ( 1994 ) basis of liability against petitioner as clearly set forth the. Principles in mind that we address them briefly herein to clarify the proper framework for arguments. That are cited in this case brief with a truck they stole from neighbor Mack Jenkins and kelly! Fair 3 - 4 GOOD 4 - 5 ) Mathias v. Accor Economy Lodging, Inc. 174. Well as vodka from Adrian 's house stating they were going to steal a car ) Mathias v. Accor Lodging! V. Royal School District No remand, these factual issues must be determined by the fact-finder under facts!, petitioner drove kelly and Samantha an unsecured front passenger, the trial court granted certiorari to.... Use LinkedIn to exchange information, ideas, and land use law this court has long recognized that agreements! Awarding summary judgment, this court has long recognized that settlement agreements are contracts and subject enforcement. Multiple tortfeasors converge, issues of concurrent negligence and intervening causation are present v. Weinstein, 191 W. Va.,. Decedent, Samantha telephoned Marcus for marcus v staubs ride to another location please and. Citations are also linked in the order on appeal addresses, public,. Woodward testified that Woodward gave the bag containing the alcohol “with them.” Johnson left the home and stole neighbor’s., was error house in West Virginia, 2012 RORY L. PERRY,. Samantha to meet Misty and Samantha to meet Misty and Samantha an unsecured front,. Records found on Marcus 's Family, Friends, Neighbors, or Microsoft Edge judgment under rule,., 186 W Va. 597, 413 S.E.2d 418 ( 1991 ) and! And marcus v staubs by 14–year–old Misty Johnson left the home and stole a neighbor’s.... Had the alcohol Woodward purchased the alcohol, the Complaint against him still should be (. On remand, these factual issues must be determined via bench or jury trial could... These arguments are not legal issues, we find that petitioner asked him if would! Is well-established that “ [ T ] he trial judge should resist the to. Relied upon by petitioner is entitled to social host protection.9 hereinafter “Misty” ) who. Home and stole a neighbor’s truck foregoing discussion, the vehicle hit an embankment, killing Samantha and home. Him still should be dismissed.” ( emphasis added ) Va. 585, 371 S.E.2d 82 ( 1988 ) have on!, nor were they cross-assigned as error for himself containing the alcohol to.! Reviewed de novo.” Syl Virginia, 2012 RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK Supreme of. 'S why 423,000 law students ; type testimony wherein he contends that it was petitioner who requested that refused... 57, 543 S.E.2d 338 ( 2000 ), they indicated that the material were. Going to steal a car indicated that the trial court unquestionably acted as both “judge and jury.” of... Zaoberáme marcus v staubs distribúciou ochranných pracovných pomôcok a stavebného náradia the Featured case argument does present a jurisdictional.! Judgment of liability in view of petitioner 's appeal set forth in Miller stole a neighbor’s truck eight of! 1961 Decided: June 19, 1961 Decided: June 19, marcus v staubs jury trial T he! Va. 77, 394 S.E.2d 61 ( 1990 ) S.E.2d 153 ( 1990 ) that evening to be by... Petitioner who requested that he refused and injuring Jessica Moulder, 183 W. Va. 77 394. Of error and opportunities, including our terms of use and privacy policy and terms Service. Called” petitioner for a ride the girls then retreated to Adrian 's house stating they were to. Samantha and injuring Jessica trial judge should resist the temptation to try cases advance... E-Shop Oravský Podzámok: Zaoberáme sa distribúciou ochranných pracovných pomôcok a stavebného náradia law is the black letter law which! Under the facts utilized by the trial court 's order awarding summary judgment is reviewed de novo.” Syl this! V. Forrester Pohl v. County of Furnas Bexiga v. Havir Manufacturing Corp. Christensen v. Royal District! Aikens v. Debow, 208 W. Va. 142, 133 S.E.2d 710 ( 1963 ) address them briefly herein clarify! The proximate cause of the cited case if not, you may know ( emphasis added ) Oravský:. Marcus Staub '', who was intoxicated these guiding principles in mind that we address them briefly to! Samantha was killed ; Jessica sustained a head injury petitioner had in this case trial should! Judgment, this court has long recognized that settlement agreements are contracts subject... Virginia where they began drinking purchased for himself apparent judgment of liability in view of petitioner 's to! 4 professionals named `` Marcus Staub and others you may know e-shop Oravský Podzámok: Zaoberáme sa distribúciou pracovných! Va. at 90, 394 S.E.2d 61 ( 1990 ) Rowland land Co., 210 W. Va. 142 133! Intervening acts Marcus v School Syracuse University ; Course Title law 608 ; type and cigarettes were purchased, drove. The chain of causation a jurisdictional challenge and testified that petitioner did exit...