Home » Parenting Articles » Parental Liability for Teen Drivers in AZ
Parental Liability for Teen Drivers in AZ
There is a general principle that someone who gives permission to use his or her vehicle does not become liable for the borrower's negligence, absent an agency or employment relationship.
June 24, 2010 /Parenting PR News/ -- Jason Beck, 17, drove his friends around one night, egging cars and homes before he hit another vehicle, causing serious injuries to the driver, Amy Young. Young sued Beck for damages and also his parents, who owned the car, claiming they were liable for their son's negligence under the family purpose doctrine.
One month earlier, Beck was in another accident and, as a result, his parents restricted his driving privileges. Beck was permitted only to drive to and from school, church or work. He was specifically prohibited from acting as a taxi service for his friends. Nonetheless, the trial court found Beck negligent and the parents liable, saying both that they provided the vehicle and it was being used for a family purpose. The parents appealed.
Family Purpose Doctrine
There is a general principle that someone who gives permission to use his or her vehicle does not become liable for the borrower's negligence, absent an agency or employment relationship. The family purpose doctrine is an exception to this principle. As adopted in 1919 in Benton v. Regeser, the rule stated that a "father who furnishes an automobile for the pleasure and convenience of the members of his family makes the use of the machine ... his affairs or business, and that any member of the family driving the machine with the father's consent, either express or implied, is the father's agent."
A more modern iteration of the rule is that generally liability exists when all of the following are true:
- There is a family with sufficient unity so that there is a head of the family
- The vehicle furnished by the head of the family to a family member must be responsible for the injury
- The vehicle must have been used with the express or implied consent of the head of the family for a family purpose
Young v. Beck
The first two elements above were undisputed. The only issue for the court to decide was whether the vehicle was used with either express or implied consent for a family purpose.
While the court agreed with Beck's parents that Beck did not have express consent to drive at the time of the accident, it found that the parents had given implied consent, based on their decision to furnish a vehicle for the pleasure and convenience of family members. The court found that Beck drove the car not only for his pleasure and convenience but also the convenience of his parents, since they were relieved of the burden of finding other transportation means for Beck.
Beck's parents also argued that the family purpose doctrine should be abolished as contrary to Arizona statutes. The court summarily responded that the legislature indicated no attempt to abrogate the pre-existing doctrine when it enacted the cited statutes. Further, as an intermediate court it acknowledged that it had no authority to abrogate the doctrine.
Scope of Parental Liability for Teen Driving
The Benton court held the father liable for the son's accident on his way home after driving his sisters to church and looking for his brother. Since then the doctrine has evolved and is broadly applied today. Parents do not have to give permission for every possible route that may be taken and can even be held liable for negligence committed while the family member is driving the vehicle in contravention of its expected use.
The court in Young v. Beck noted with approval findings in other jurisdictions that:
- The fact that the child had to get special permission before using the car does not remove the vehicle from the general applicability of the family purpose doctrine
- The child's disregard of the parents' prohibition against letting other people drive the car does not preclude application of the family purpose doctrine
- If it is a family vehicle, then the fact that it is used on a particular occasion without permission or in violation of instructions does not bar recovery against the parent
- The doctrine applied to a child who, in disobedience to a direct order from the parents, drove the family car outside of the city limits because that had no bearing on the purpose of the car, only on the general parental supervision of the child.
The court referenced a Tennessee case analogizing disobedience of parents' rules to traffic infractions, noting that the fact that a child was speeding at the time of an accident should not relieve parents of liability for damages.
Allowing parents to escape liability based upon the child's disobedience would place a premium on the incorrigibility of the child, which is contrary to the purpose of the doctrine to provide reparation for an injured party from the closest financially responsible person to the wrongdoing child. As such, parents may be liable for medical damages, including hospital costs and therapy, as well as damages to personal property, such as the other driver's vehicle.
The court has found no liability in cases where the child purchased the car solely with his or her own funds or where the child broke into a locked garage to obtain the vehicle. Parents of teen drivers with questions about their liability should contact a personal injury attorney to discuss how to minimize their liability.
Article provided by Knapp & Roberts
Visit us at www.krattorneysautoaccident.com
---
Press release service and press release distribution provided by http://www.24-7pressrelease.com |
|
|
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertise With Us |
About Us |
Contact Us