Lexplug logoLexplug

Malchose v. Kalfell

Supreme Court of North Dakota
664 N.W.2d 508 (2003)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The family car doctrine can impose vicarious liability on parents who furnish a vehicle for their adult child, even if the child lives away from home, provided the child remains a member of the family unit based on the totality of the circumstances, including financial dependency.


Facts:

  • On February 13, 2000, Eric Kalfell and Kelly Malchose were involved in a motor vehicle accident.
  • At the time, Eric Kalfell was an adult college student living away from his parents' home.
  • The car Eric Kalfell was driving, a 1992 Pontiac Bonneville, was titled in the names of his parents, Lance and Lisa Kalfell.
  • Lance and Lisa Kalfell purchased and furnished the vehicle for their son's use.
  • The parents provided Eric Kalfell with financial support while he was at college and claimed him as a dependent on their tax returns.
  • Eric Kalfell listed his parents' ranch address as his own on his driver's license.

Procedural Posture:

  • Kelly Malchose sued Eric Kalfell for negligence and his parents, Lance and Lisa Kalfell, on theories including the family car doctrine in a state trial court.
  • After a bench trial, the trial court found Eric Kalfell negligent and his parents liable under the family car doctrine.
  • The trial court awarded damages to Kelly Malchose.
  • The Kalfells, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Locked

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 car doctrine apply to hold parents liable for the negligence of their adult child when the child lives away from home but remains financially dependent on the parents who furnished the vehicle?


Opinions:

Majority - Neumann, Justice.

Yes. The family car doctrine applies to hold parents liable for the negligence of their adult child under these circumstances. The doctrine holds the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for its negligent operation by a person using it with the owner's consent for the family's business or pleasure. The applicability of the doctrine depends on the totality of the circumstances, not a rigid set of rules. Here, the trial court's finding that Eric Kalfell was a member of the family for purposes of the doctrine was not clearly erroneous. The key facts supporting this conclusion include that his parents, Lance and Lisa Kalfell, owned and furnished the car, he was financially dependent on them for college and vehicle maintenance, they claimed him as a dependent on their tax returns, and he used the family address on his driver's license. These factors together establish that he was still part of the family unit, and the car was provided for family purposes.


Concurring - Kapsner, Justice,

Yes. The family car doctrine applies based on the facts presented and the limited scope of the appeal, which only challenged the doctrine's application, not its existence. However, the family car doctrine is an outdated legal concept that should be abolished. It is inconsistent with modern legislative schemes that mandate liability insurance and govern uninsured motorists. While I concur in the result because the doctrine was not challenged, its continued existence creates inconsistencies in the law. Additionally, the majority's complex hearsay analysis regarding the medical bill summary was unnecessary; the summary was admissible under N.D.R.Ev. 1006 as a summary of facts to which the plaintiff was competent to testify directly.



Analysis:

This case affirms the flexibility of the family car doctrine, extending its reach beyond the traditional model of a family living under one roof. The court's reliance on a 'totality of the circumstances' analysis signals that financial dependency and other indicia of a continuing family relationship are more critical than the child's legal age or separate residence. This decision solidifies that parents who furnish a vehicle and provide significant financial support to their adult children in college may remain vicariously liable for their negligence. The ruling reinforces the doctrine's underlying policy of ensuring an avenue for recovery for those injured by financially dependent family members.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Malchose v. Kalfell (2003) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Malchose v. Kalfell