LAWYERGUYS > Parental liability in at-fault auto accident (1 Viewer)

[[icon]]

Curious about application of "Family Purpose Doctrine" as well as "Vicarious Liability" here.

Situation: Friend gets in accident, rear ending someone who bumps person in front of them. Minimal damage to third vehicle. Short time later, friend and friend's mother gets certified letter from local ambulance chaser on behalf of 3rd driver.

Mother (resides in MS) purchased car (still making payments, does not have title), for friend to drive exclusively (resides in TN). Friend has no auto insurance nor much in the way of assets. Friend is not a minor nor has lived under roof of mother for some time.

Friend has otherwise squeaky clean driving record and was sober at time of accident so proving negligence of parent for letting friend drive the car would seem to be tough.

My initial assessment is this is a shake down for settlement, but in reality, what is the Mother's likely exposure in this?

TIA

 

[[icon]]

DISCLAIMER: I acknowledge the friend should retain local counsel, laws may vary state by state, you're not giving actual legal advice, etc...

 

[Abraham]

Why doesn't she have insurance?

 

[[icon]]

Why doesn't she have insurance?

I agree that sucks...he/she understands that was stupid and it will cost them.

Curious about parental exposure, though.

 

[gmbacm]

Why doesn't she have insurance?

I agree that sucks...he/she understands that was stupid and it will cost them.

Curious about parental exposure, though.

I dont have any hermaphrodite friends.

 

[jfranco77]

Interesting to note, though not necessarily relevant, that most title holders require you to keep insurance while they still have the lien on your car. Not sure how they got/get around that.

 

[Christo]

I'm actually defending a case similar to this right now.

Who's the registered owner?

 

[[icon]]

Why doesn't she have insurance?

I agree that sucks...he/she understands that was stupid and it will cost them.

Curious about parental exposure, though.

I dont have any hermaphrodite friends.

You should get some, they're awesome.

 

[[icon]]

I'm actually defending a case similar to this right now.

Who's the registered owner?

Nice, thanks for responding. Mother purchased car and registered it (in MS), friend used the car for daily driving detail.

Shocks (though doesn't surprise) me to think there could be some exposure on the mother's behalf here. I understand situations involving negligence (giving keys to impaired person, or person with a record of irresponsible driving), or in the event of a minor living under the parent's roof. The mother's culpability seems odd here.

Would you agree this is likely a scare tactic to push for out of court settlement of some sort? Is the atty likely to pursue if told to pound sand?

 

[Christo]

I'm actually defending a case similar to this right now.

Who's the registered owner?

Nice, thanks for responding.

Mother purchased car and registered it (MS), friend used the car for daily driving detail.

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer.

 

[[icon]]

Huh... crazy.

 

[James Daulton]

I'm no lawyer but I bet the mom's on the hook since the car is registered to her. The car wasn't stolen so she had knowledge how it was being used.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The family purpose doctrine is simply a variety of vicarious liability. The Tennessee Supreme Court has reviewed the doctrine in some depth fairly recently.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/starrarleneopn.pdf

From your facts, I assume that a Court would likely find that your friend's mother had no duty to support your friend and that she had no meaningful supervision of your friend, and thus, the doctrine would not apply.

A (very) cursory Google search does not reveal any other automotive consent statute that would confer an alternative source of liability (in common law, a bailee is solely responsible for torts committed during a bailment).

EDIT: Keep in mind that the posted case itself arguably expanded the doctrine and there's no guarantee that a subsequent case couldn't further expand the doctrine. But the decision states:

We conclude that in determining whether the owner of a vehicle is to be designated a head of the household for purposes of the family purpose doctrine, appropriate factors to consider include whether there is a family relationship between the owner and the driver and whether the owner has a duty to support the driver.

And further it states that:

"Liability without personal fault or control or the right of control over the acts of another whose negligence causes an injury is contrary to accepted

principles of legal liability.”

quoting Boles v. Russell, 252 S.W.2d 801, 803 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1952).

 

[Dr Oadi]

####### lawyers....

 

[[icon]]

The family purpose doctrine is simply a variety of vicarious liability. The Tennessee Supreme Court has reviewed the doctrine in some depth fairly recently.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/starrarleneopn.pdf

From your facts, I assume that a Court would likely find that your friend's mother had no duty to support your friend and that she had no meaningful supervision of your friend, and thus, the doctrine would not apply.

A (very) cursory Google search does not reveal any other automotive consent statute that would confer an alternative source of liability (in common law, a bailee is solely responsible for torts committed during a bailment).

Thanks for this.

Not sure if it's a factor, but friend is ~30 years old. As I read it, the majority of the meat behind FPD seems to implicate younger drivers and their parents.

perhaps pertaining to that:

In Woodfin v. Insel, 13 Tenn. App. 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931), the plaintiffs sued a grandmother who lived with her adult daughter and minor grandson after the grandson was involved in a collision while driving the grandmother’s car. The appellate court’s determination that the grandmother was not the head of the household was based in part on the finding that she owed her children or grandchildren no duty of support.

Seeing as friend generally provides for their household and receives no ongoing support from mother (outside the vehicle in question), I wonder if this would apply here.
Along the same lines:

Adkins v. Nanney, 82 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn. 1935), the father was sued after his adult son was involved in an accident while driving the father’s car. Although the son lived with the father, the son was self-supporting. Id. at 867-68. Because the son was not subject to the father’s control and the father had no duty to provide for the adult son’s support, comfort, and pleasure, the court ruled that the family purpose doctrine was not applicable. Id. at 868.In Amari v. Russell, No. 87-188-II, 1988 WL 50001 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 1988), the intermediate appellate court ruled that the family purpose doctrine was not applicable where the forty-eight-year-old son of the defendant father “did not live with his father nor was he supported by his father.”

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

 

[[icon]]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Inquiring.

 

[GroveDiesel]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that liability would have little to nothing to do with the parental relationship and everything to do with someone who owned the title and registration on a vehicle not insuring it and allowing someone without insurance to use their car. So even if it were a friend that she allowed to use the car instead of her son, she could still be liable.

Mom definitely needs to talk to a lawyer IMO.

If the mom does have insurance that would cover the accident, then of course the victim will sue the mom in order to have insurance pay for it.

I may be wrong, but I think some states have auto insurance that covers vehicles and some have insurance that covers individuals. So that could play a role. But even if a policy covers a vehicle, the insurance company could object if the vehicle is being used primarily by a different individual and in a different state.

 

[[icon]]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

 

[Christo]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Does she have an umbrella policy?

 

[Foosball God]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Oof. Mom likely screwed.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Any chance she has an umbrella policy covering everything to be safe?

 

[[icon]]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Does she have an umbrella policy?

Doubt it.

Local atty (acquaintance of friend) apparently told friend to call back ambulance chasers with "I have no insurance, I have no assets" and they will likely decide not to pursue. No papers have been served yet so apparently not actually being sued yet. Said this is a fishing trip on behalf of ambulance chasers (high volume personal injury firm).

 

[[icon]]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Oof. Mom likely screwed.

"I thought mom had a policy on the car. Mom thought I had a policy on the car"

how one drives around without an insurance card for an extended period is another thing entirely. Certainly not trying to excuse friend's actions here. Red Forman "#######" worthy, no doubt.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Does she have an umbrella policy?

Or, what he said.

I usually only do plaintiff's work, and in that my answer in this kind of case would be sue everybody (name that phone prankster) and then let the insurance companies figure it out. The laws in those states matter though. The few cases I have actually served as private counsel on whether it be auto or other form of personal injury - I could tell you my sole primary goal - get an insurance company to cover the liability usually by agreeing to liability. It isn't easy.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Oof. Mom likely screwed.

"I thought mom had a policy on the car. Mom thought I had a policy on the car"

how one drives around without an insurance card for an extended period is another thing entirely. Certainly not trying to excuse friend's actions here. Red Forman "#######" worthy, no doubt.

I'm still kinda curious as to how she could be making payments on the car but not have insurance. I don't think I have ever seen that.

 

[[icon]]

I usually only do plaintiff's work, and in that my answer in this kind of case would be sue everybody (name that phone prankster) and then let the insurance companies figure it out. The laws in those states matter though. The few cases I have actually served as private counsel on whether it be auto or other form of personal injury - I could tell you my sole primary goal - get an insurance company to cover the liability usually by agreeing to liability. It isn't easy.

Gotcha. Thanks for feedback GB (and to others who have addressed the topic in the thread).

Anyone have an idea of how often this sort of shot over the bow is simply a fishing trip to see what pops up, and if it looks like a hard road to that pot of gold (or if the pot of gold doesn't appear to contain much) the pros atty decides to cut bait?

 

[[icon]]

I'm still kinda curious as to how she could be making payments on the car but not have insurance. I don't think I have ever seen that.

You and I both. I'm not close enough to either party to know much about that. The situation does intrigue me enough to post up though.

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

Was anyone in the other car hurt? Was anyone cited? If the mother had insurance on the car it likely would covered this. The typical rule is that insurance follows the vehicle.

 

[[icon]]

From what I understand, friend was cited for failure to maintain control. At the scene of the accident there were no announced injuries. My guess is ambulance chaser firm was trolling the police blotter, contacted driver 3 and convinced them they were "hurt". Not sure though.

Driver 2 (directly hit by friend) hasn't gotten involved with an atty. This is purely coming from driver 3 hit via secondary contact from driver 2.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

The family purpose doctrine is simply a variety of vicarious liability. The Tennessee Supreme Court has reviewed the doctrine in some depth fairly recently.

http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/sites/default/files/starrarleneopn.pdf

From your facts, I assume that a Court would likely find that your friend's mother had no duty to support your friend and that she had no meaningful supervision of your friend, and thus, the doctrine would not apply.

A (very) cursory Google search does not reveal any other automotive consent statute that would confer an alternative source of liability (in common law, a bailee is solely responsible for torts committed during a bailment).

Thanks for this.

Not sure if it's a factor, but friend is ~30 years old. As I read it, the majority of the meat behind FPD seems to implicate younger drivers and their parents.

perhaps pertaining to that:

In Woodfin v. Insel, 13 Tenn. App. 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1931), the plaintiffs sued a grandmother who lived with her adult daughter and minor grandson after the grandson was involved in a collision while driving the grandmother’s car. The appellate court’s determination that the grandmother was not the head of the household was based in part on the finding that she owed her children or grandchildren no duty of support.

Seeing as friend generally provides for their household and receives no ongoing support from mother (outside the vehicle in question), I wonder if this would apply here.
Along the same lines:

Adkins v. Nanney, 82 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn. 1935), the father was sued after his adult son was involved in an accident while driving the father’s car. Although the son lived with the father, the son was self-supporting. Id. at 867-68. Because the son was not subject to the father’s control and the father had no duty to provide for the adult son’s support, comfort, and pleasure, the court ruled that the family purpose doctrine was not applicable. Id. at 868.In Amari v. Russell, No. 87-188-II, 1988 WL 50001 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 1988), the intermediate appellate court ruled that the family purpose doctrine was not applicable where the forty-eight-year-old son of the defendant father “did not live with his father nor was he supported by his father.”

Keep in mind that Starr explicitly overrules Amari to the extent that it relies on whether the child lives with the head of household. For obvious reasons, the test from 1935 doesn't work very well in a post-divorce world.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Oof. Mom likely screwed.

"I thought mom had a policy on the car. Mom thought I had a policy on the car"

how one drives around without an insurance card for an extended period is another thing entirely. Certainly not trying to excuse friend's actions here. Red Forman "#######" worthy, no doubt.

I'm still kinda curious as to how she could be making payments on the car but not have insurance. I don't think I have ever seen that.

Most lenders would issue forced placed insurance. This may have already happened. Although that's just collision and comprehensive, not liability. Some lenders have blanket policies and some self insurance, but at a minimum, mom should have received letters about lack of insurance.

 

[fantasycurse42]

start hiding money!

 

[Henry Ford]

Mom needs to talk to a lawyer. Does mom have auto insurance? Is this car covered under her policy? Does her policy have alternate drivers in it?

Mom has auto insurance. Car not covered under her policy. Car is apparently referenced in exactly zero insurance policies.

Does she have an umbrella policy?

Doubt it.

Local atty (acquaintance of friend) apparently told friend to call back ambulance chasers with "I have no insurance, I have no assets" and they will likely decide not to pursue. No papers have been served yet so apparently not actually being sued yet. Said this is a fishing trip on behalf of ambulance chasers (high volume personal injury firm).

Also, it may be that the injured party can't get his/her uninsured motorist coverage to pay him/her until it's proven that the person who rear-ended him/her doesn't have insurance. Most insurance companies don't just say "well, you got hit - here's your uninsured motorist policy maximum!"

 

[Henry Ford]

I also love the assumption that the person who did nothing wrong, was not cited by the police, and was hit by a careless driver driving an uninsured car is the bad guy here for sending a letter asking if the registered owner of the car has insurance.

 

[[icon]]

I also love the assumption that the person who did nothing wrong, was not cited by the police, and was hit by a careless driver driving an uninsured car is the bad guy here for sending a letter asking if the registered owner of the car has insurance.

I in no way implied that, however the firm they are dealing with has a reputation that cannot be denied. Friend was cited and by all accounts would seem to be at fault. They are just a little put off by the attempt to include the mother in this.

 

[Henry Ford]

From what I understand, friend was cited for failure to maintain control. At the scene of the accident there were no announced injuries. My guess is ambulance chaser firm was trolling the police blotter, contacted driver 3 and convinced them they were "hurt". Not sure though.

Driver 2 (directly hit by friend) hasn't gotten involved with an atty. This is purely coming from driver 3 hit via secondary contact from driver 2.

I don't think attorneys do this much anymore. Primarily because it can cost an attorney his license.

 

[Fennis]

 

[Henry Ford]

I also love the assumption that the person who did nothing wrong, was not cited by the police, and was hit by a careless driver driving an uninsured car is the bad guy here for sending a letter asking if the registered owner of the car has insurance.

I in no way implied that, however the firm they are dealing with has a reputation that cannot be denied. Friend was cited and by all accounts would seem to be at fault. They are just a little put off by the attempt to include the mother in this.

It's her car. When the driver doesn't have insurance, usually the owner does. If neither does, there's usually a big screw up somewhere. It's just definitely not the fault of the guy who wasn't doing anything wrong.