COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 61212 WILLIAM P. WATTS : : ACCELERATED DOCKET : PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT : JOURNAL ENTRY : v. : AND : THURMON O. PRYOR : OPINION : : PER CURIAM DEFENDANT-APPELLEE : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 19, 1992 CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court, No. CP-130834. JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff-Appellant: Murray Richelson, Esq. 842 Terminal Tower Cleveland, OH 44113 For Defendant-Appellee: Fredric Kramer, Esq. 55 Public Square Illuminating Building, 10th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 -2- PER CURIAM: This appeal was filed and briefed as an accelerated appeal pursuant to Local R. 25 of this court. Plaintiff-appellant William Watts appeals the judgment of the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas which directed a verdict for defendant-appellee Damon McKinney. The facts are as follows. On March 14, 1987, plaintiff- appellant William Watts was shot and critically injured by defendant Thurman D. Pryor. (Pryor was tried and convicted in a companion criminal proceeding.) Defendant-appellee McKinney and other defendants, voluntarily dismissed from this appeal, were with defendant Pryor at the time of the shooting. At the civil trial for damages, appellant Watts amended his complaint to bring in appellee McKinney via a theory of "joint enterprise" to-wit, that defendant-Pryor and appellee-McKinney were acting in concert in the shooting incident, thus, Pryor's negligence would be imputed to appellee McKinney. Appellee McKinney, subsequently, motioned the court to direct the verdict. After hearing the evidence on the motion, the court granted McKinney's motion for directed verdict. On review, we hold that the court properly granted appellee's motion for directed verdict. Imputed negligence in Ohio applies only where there is a "joint enterprise." Bloom v. Leech (1929), 120 Ohio St. 239, paragraph one of the syllabus. A joint enterprise is "the joint prosecution of a common purpose under such circumstances that each member of such enterprise has the authority to act for all in respect to the control of the agencies employed to execute such common purpose." Bloom, paragraph two of the syllabus. A -3- joint enterprise therefore requires a common purpose and mutual control. Where a joint venture exists, each party to the venture is liable for the tortious acts of the other committed within the scope of the business of the venture. Clifton v. Van Dresser Corp. (1991), 73 Ohio App.3d 202. See also, West American Ins. Co. v. Carter (1989), 50 Ohio Misc.2d 20. This court recognizes that the imputation of negligence due to a joint enterprise should be strictly confined to circumstances where two or more persons unite in the joint prosecution of a common purpose. West American Ins. Co. In applying that standard to the facts within, this court finds that appellee Damon McKinney was not engaged in a joint enterprise with co-defendant Thurman Pryor in the shooting injury incurred by appellant Watts. The facts garnered from the record indicate that Thurman Pryor alone had authority and control over the rifle which Pryor intentionally fired into the crowd, thus wounding appellant Watts. The testimony of appellee McKinney and Anthony Johnson corroborates the evidence that appellee McKinney lacked knowledge of co-defendant Pryor's possession of the rifle or Pryor's intent to fire into the crowd. Thus, the action of Pryor cannot be imputed to McKinney in the absence of their common purpose to shoot into the crowd and mutual control of the rifle. Hence, Assignment of Error I is overruled and the trial court's judgment is affirmed. -4- It is ordered that appellee recover of appellant his costs herein taxed. The court finds there were reasonable grounds for this appeal. It is ordered that a special mandate issue out of this court directing the Common Pleas Court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. Exceptions. DAVID T. MATIA, CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH J. NAHRA, JUDGE FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, JUDGE N.B. This entry is made pursuant to the third sentence of Rule 22(D), Ohio Rules of Appellate Procedure. This is an announcement of decision (see Rule 26). Ten (10) days from the date hereof this document will be stamped to indicate journalization, at which time it will become the judgment and order of the court and time period for review will begin to run. .