Opinion ID: 1044006
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Family Purpose Doctrine

Text: The family purpose doctrine was first recognized in Tennessee in King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217, 204 S.W. 296 (1918), just ten years after the introduction of the Ford Model T automobile when the automotive industry was still in its infancy. This doctrine imposes vicarious liability on a head of the household for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a family member provided that the head of the household maintains the vehicle for the purpose of providing pleasure or comfort for his or her family, and the family purpose driver [was] using the motor vehicle at the time of the injury `in furtherance of that purpose with the permission, either express or implied of the [head of the household] owner.' Strine v. Walton, 323 S.W.3d 480, 489 (Tenn.Ct.App.2010) (quoting Redding v. Barker, 33 Tenn.App. 132, 230 S.W.2d 202, 205 (1950)) (emphasis omitted); Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437, 447 (Tenn.1996). The doctrine is a court-created legal fiction that employs agency principles to hold the owner of the vehicle vicariously liable. Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145, 156 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001). As one learned legal treatise has observed, [s]ometimes it is said that the owner would be liable for the negligence of a chauffeur whom he hires to drive his family, and therefore should be liable when he entrusts the same task to a member of his family instead. There is obviously an unblushing element of fiction in this manufactured agency; and it has quite often been recognized, without apology, that the doctrine is an instrument of policy, a transparent device intended to place the liability upon the party most easily held responsible. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts § 73, at 524 (5th ed.1984) (footnotes omitted). While the doctrine is grounded in the law of agency, as the Court clarified in King, [t]he law of agency is not confined to business transactions, and when, as happened in that case, a father buys a car for the pleasure and entertainment of his family, and ... gives his ... son, who is a member of his family, permission to use it for pleasure, ... the son is in the furtherance of this purpose of the father while driving the car for his own pleasure. 204 S.W. at 298. The doctrine is based on the theory that a family member who provides and maintains a vehicle for the pleasure or convenience of the family makes the vehicle's use his or her business, and that in using the vehicle, the family members are furthering the purpose for which it is maintained. Redding, 230 S.W.2d at 205 (citing Scates v. Sandefer, 163 Tenn. 558, 44 S.W.2d 310, 311 (1931)). As a matter of public policy, we choose to apply the doctrine to create an incentive for a parent to exercise control over a child's use of the vehicle and to make available another pocket from which an injured party may collect compensation. See Camper, 915 S.W.2d at 447-48; King, 204 S.W. at 298. The need for a responsible adult between the public and a young driver is more compelling today than it was in the early part of the last century. There are a substantially greater number of vehicles on the road than there were ninety years ago, [2] and there is an increased risk of accident. Teen drivers, ages 16-19, are more likely to be involved in a vehicular accident than any other age group and account for a disproportionate share of the total cost of motor vehicle injuries. [3] As one court has observed, [t]he loss of life resulting from inexperienced teen drivers is a national problem of epidemic proportions. People v. Badke, 21 Misc.3d 471, 865 N.Y.S.2d 488, 494 (N.Y.Co.Ct.2008). The family purpose doctrine serves a vital function by providing parents with additional incentive to ensure that their children operate motor vehicles in a safe manner. The second rationale for the family purpose doctrineto ensure that innocent members of the public have a source of reasonable compensationremains a strong reason for its retention despite the enactment of Tennessee's Financial Responsibility Law. Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 55-12-101 to -140 (2008 & Supp.2010). The Financial Responsibility Law requires that the driver of a motor vehicle involved in an accident resulting in death, injury, or property damage of $50 or more submit insurance documentation or other evidence of financial responsibility to the officer investigating the accident. See Tenn.Code Ann. §§ 55-12-139(b) and 55-10-106(a). Proof of financial responsibility includes documentation of insurance, such as an insurance card, from an insurance company stating that a policy of liability insurance has been issued. [4] The Financial Responsibility Law does not require vehicle liability insurance, but the statute contemplates that most drivers will comply with this requirement by purchasing liability insurance. Purkey v. Am. Home Assur. Co., 173 S.W.3d 703, 706-07 (Tenn.2005). Although the Financial Responsibility Law may provide innocent victims with some assurance that they will not be totally without recourse in the event they suffer injury, purchase of liability insurance is not required when a vehicle is acquired and the extent of required financial responsibility is only twenty-five thousand dollars $25,000 for bodily injury to or death of one person, $50,000 for bodily injury to or death of two or more persons in any one accident, and $15,000 for damage to property in any one accident. Tenn.Code Ann. § 55-12-102(12)(D)(i). The Financial Responsibility Law is an inadequate substitute for the family purpose doctrine. [5] The family purpose doctrine remains an important component of the tort law of this state and other states, [6] and the underlying principles that prompted adoption of the doctrine in Tennessee in 1918 remain valid reasons for its retention today.