The family purpose doctrine was adopted in 1918 to protect the public at large from the hazards of teenage drivers. Essentially, the head of the household is liable if a member of the household has an accident in a car owned by the family. What happens when the parents are divorced, Dad owns the car, son lives with Mom and the divorce decree requires Dad to provide son with the car. That is the question. And the answer is -- Dad is still the "head of the household" even though son does not live with him.
But wait, in an interesting twist, the Tennessee Supreme Court says that because the son does not live with Dad, and the Parenting Plan says that Mom makes all of the decisions regarding son's conduct, then Dad "may" not be responsible because he does not "control" the son. So, the case goes back to the trial court for a determination of whether Dad had the requisite amount of control. Unless Dad is a complete idiot, he will testify that he had absolutely no control over son's use of the car; his ex-wife was the one in control.
Have a great day.
See Starr v. Hill, et al.
No comments:
Post a Comment