Driver v. Smith
47 Tenn. App. 505, 1959 Tenn. App. LEXIS 139, 339 S.W.2d 135 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Family Purpose Doctrine, a vehicle owner is liable for the negligence of a third party driving the car with a family member's permission if the family member is present and their own negligence contributes to the accident. A minor deviation from the owner's instructions regarding the area of operation does not sever liability if the purpose of the car's use remains consistent with its family purpose.
Facts:
- Clarence Driver owned a Mercury automobile which he maintained for the use, pleasure, and convenience of his family, including his teenage daughter, Gayle Driver.
- Gayle was required to obtain special permission for each use of the car and had standing instructions not to drive it outside the Humboldt city limits at night, though exceptions were sometimes made.
- On the evening of August 12, 1957, Gayle, with her parents' permission to use the car, picked up several friends, including Geraldine Smith.
- At Gayle's suggestion, a friend, Bobby Joe Moore, began driving the vehicle while Gayle sat next to him on the crowded front seat.
- The group drove approximately three miles outside the Humboldt city limits.
- While Moore was driving the car back towards Humboldt, Gayle leaned over and engaged in a kiss with him.
- As a direct result of this distraction, Moore lost control of the vehicle, which ran into a ditch, causing severe injuries to passenger Geraldine Smith.
Procedural Posture:
- Happel E. Smith (on his own behalf for medical expenses) and Geraldine Smith (by next friend for her injuries) sued Clarence Driver in a Tennessee trial court.
- A jury returned verdicts in favor of Happel E. Smith for $1,000 and Geraldine Smith for $5,000.
- The trial court entered judgments on the jury verdicts and overruled the defendant's motion for a new trial.
- Clarence Driver, the defendant, appealed the judgments to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, becoming the plaintiff-in-error (appellant).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Family Purpose Doctrine impose liability on a car owner when his minor daughter, using the car with permission, allows a third party to drive, and the daughter's own negligent act of distracting the driver causes an accident that occurs during a minor deviation from the owner's geographic restrictions?
Opinions:
Majority - Carney, J.
Yes. The Family Purpose Doctrine imposes liability on the car owner under these circumstances. The court reasoned that the doctrine applies because the owner, Clarence Driver, admitted he furnished the car for his family's use and pleasure; the requirement of special permission for each use was merely a form of parental supervision and did not negate the car's underlying family purpose. The owner is liable for the driver's negligence because his daughter, Gayle, was present in the vehicle and was herself guilty of proximate negligence by distracting the driver with a kiss, an act which caused him to lose control. This negligence in her supervision of the driving is imputed to her father. Finally, the deviation of driving three miles outside the city limits was not a material deviation sufficient to relieve the owner of liability, as it was a minor infraction and the car was still being used for its intended purpose of pleasure.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the scope of the Family Purpose Doctrine in Tennessee, establishing that minor operational restrictions do not defeat the doctrine's application if a vehicle is generally maintained for family use. It significantly holds that a family member's own negligence while supervising a third-party driver can be imputed to the vehicle's owner, extending liability beyond just the actions of the third-party driver. The court's treatment of the geographic deviation as immaterial suggests that future courts will focus on the purpose of the vehicle's use rather than minor disobediences of instructions to determine liability.
