Parents Sued Over Son’s Accident

Parents Sued over Son's Accident

I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in cases involving the Family Car Doctrine, also referred to as the Family Purpose Doctrine. Many of these cases settle before trial. But this one did not.

The Facts

I represented the parents and their teenage son who was the at-fault driver in an auto accident that went to jury trial in Pierce County Superior Cout. We conceded that the son was at fault for the accident but argued that the parents were not responsible for their son’s negligence under the Family Car Doctrine. 

The Verdict

*Insert coming*

The Family Car Doctrine

A person who owns, maintains, or provides a motor vehicle for the use of a member of his or her family is responsible for the acts of that individual in the operation of that motor vehicle. Washington Pattern Jury Instruction 72.05.

Under the family car doctrine, a parent may be held liable for their children’s negligent driving if the plaintiff proves each of the following elements: 

(1) the car is owned, provided or maintained by the parent;

(2) for the customary conveyance of family members and other family business;

(3) and at the time of the accident the car is being driven by a member of the family for whom the car is maintained;

(4) with the express or implied consent of the parent. 

The family car doctrine is based on agency principles; the members of the family who are permitted to drive the automobile are viewed as the agents of the owners if it is established that they were using the vehicle in furtherance of a family purpose for which it was maintained. The doctrine is based on case law, not statute, so its application depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. 

Here is an example of implied consent under Washington's Family Car Doctrine, based on patterns of past behavior: 

Example

A parent owns a car that is generally available for family use. Their 19-year-old child, who lives at home, has been using the car freely for several years to run errands, visit friends, and get to a part-time job. The parent has never explicitly forbidden the child from taking the car, and it is common for the child to grab the keys and go without asking every single time.

One evening, the child takes the car to go to the store without asking for permission. On the way, the child is distracted and causes an accident. Even though the child did not ask for permission on this specific occasion, a court could find that the parent gave "implied consent" because of their established history and pattern of allowing the child to use the vehicle. The child was using the car for a typical "family purpose" (running an errand), and the parent's past actions demonstrated their implicit approval for such use. Therefore, the parent could be held liable for the damages caused by the accident, even though they were not in the car and did not give explicit permission for that particular trip. 

Why it matters

*Insert coming*

Extension to third parties

The parent can also be held liable for the negligent driving of the family car by a third party who is allowed to drive it.

Title ownership is not always determinative

The person identified as the vehicle’s actual registered owner is relevant but not necessarily determinative of liability under the family purpose doctrine. Proof that the vehicle was provided or maintained by a parent for family use may suffice to invoke the doctrine regardless of the name on title or registration documents. 

Moreover, mere title ownership is not enough to make the doctrine applicable if the driver was the real owner of the vehicle who had exclusive control and use of it. This is because a vehicle “cannot be maintained for a family purpose if the parent has no control over the use of the vehicle or the activities of the driver.”

Courts will consider a few factors in assessing whether a parent is the “owner” of a vehicle including who paid for the vehicle, who pays for insurance, gas and maintenance, and most importantly, who had the right to control the use of the vehicle.

The parent cannot be held liable for an adult child’s actions under the family car doctrine when the child had been gifted the car, the parent exercises no control over the vehicle, the child does not ask permission to use the vehicle, and the title is solely in the child’s name, even if that child lives at home rent free and receives sporadic financial assistance for gasoline and vehicle repairs. Bearwood v. Thurik, 2010 Wash. App. LEXIS 1307 (Wash. Ct. App., June 14, 2010). 

The Negligent Entrustment Doctrine

The Negligent Entrustment Doctrine is an alternative theory that can be used to hold an owner liable for the negligent driving of a third party who they permit to use their vehicle. The key is whether the owner knew or should have known that the person they are loaning their car to is not qualified or competent to drive safely or responsibly. 

Proof required

A plaintiff must prove that the owner entrusted their vehicle to someone they knew or reasonably should have known was unfit or incompetent to drive safely. This generally requires more than one or two prior traffic tickets Examples of this include lending a car to someone who does not have a valid driver's license or driving experience, a prior history of DUIs or reckless driving, or is visibly intoxicated or impaired.

NOTE: This article is intended to inform the reader of general legal principles applicable to the subject area. They are not intended to provide legal advice regarding specific problems or circumstances. Readers should consult with competent counsel with regard to specific situations.