Opinion ID: 902010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Implied Permission from Hansons

Text: [¶ 10.] To establish implied permission, there must be a showing of a course of conduct or practice known to the owner and acquiesced in by him that would lead to an application of permission for a particular venture. Trobaugh, 2001 SD 37, ¶ 23, 623 N.W.2d at 502 (citing Western Cas. & Surety Co. v. Anderson, 273 N.W.2d 203, 205 (S.D.1979)). The following factors are considered: [P]ast and present conduct of the insured, relationship between the driver and the insured, and usage and practice of the parties over an extended period of time prior to the use in question.    [T]he usage and practice of the parties must be such that would indicate to a reasonable mind that the driver had the right to assume permission under the particular circumstances. Id. (emphasis added). [¶ 11.] The issues involving the past and present conduct of the insured and the usage or practice of the parties over time are closely related. Id. ¶ 25, 623 N.W.2d at 502. In this case, there is a clear inference that Hansons were aware the friends of their children often used the ATV. Indeed, the Hansons' own affidavits and testimony alleged that they adopted rules attempting to restrict use of the ATV by their children's friends. Moreover, Laci stated to the insurance adjuster that she was sure Jozette had driven the ATV prior to the accident. Brittany testified that Jozette had clearly driven [the ATV] before [the accident]. And, Jozette indicated that she used the ATV with Brittany forty or fifty times on and off the Hansons farm at times when the Hansons were and were not present. [¶ 12.] Because Jozette and Brittany were good friends and had used the ATV many times when Hansons were present, an inference exists that Hansons may have allowed Jozette to use the ATV. Relationships may lead to the probabil[ity] of permissive use. See id. ¶¶ 24, 25, 623 N.W.2d at 502. An inference that Hansons would have acquiesced to Jozette and Shane's use of the ATV on the day in question was created by this relationship and by evidence that the Hansons entrusted Brittany with the authority to allow other children to drive the ATV. Laci testified that she bought the ATV for Brittany as a birthday present, that it was Brittany's ATV, and that Brittany usually kept and controlled the keys. Brittany testified that it was her ATV, that she kept the keys, and that she could decide which friends could ride the ATV. Brittany was asked: Q: [T]hey [the Hansons] made the independent judgment that you were mature enough to operate the ATV? A: Correct. Q: And they [the Hansons] made the independent judgment that you were mature enough to let other people like Jozette ... operate that ATV? A: As long as we weren't doing anything stupid. Q: And the same can be said for Shane. Shane could have driven that ATV, as long as he didn't do anything stupid? A: Right. Alex confirmed Brittany's apparent authority, testifying that he never asked the Hansons for permission to ride the ATV because Brittany's permission would have been enough[.] [¶ 13.] Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Jozette, an inference can be drawn that the Hansons allowed Brittany to determine who could operate the ATV. This inference, together with the fact that Brittany twice gave express permission for Shane to use the ATV on the day in question, was sufficient to create a further inference that Shane had the right to assume permission under the particular circumstances. See Trobaugh, 2001 SD 37, ¶ 23, 623 N.W.2d at 502. Considering the Hansons' knowledge that friends of their children were using the ATV, Jozette's extensive prior use of the ATV, and the fact that Jozette and Brittany were good friends, this case is similar to that presented in Trobaugh: [t]he circumstances strongly suggest that [this] usage and practice of the parties remained constant. Id. ¶ 25, 623 N.W.2d at 503. Furthermore, even though Hansons argue that Brittany did not have carte blanche to allow her friends to drive the ATV, courts have found implied permission where a named insured, who previously had prohibited delegation, acquiesced in a repeated pattern of delegation[.] Ragatz, 1997 SD 123, ¶ 18 n. 3, 571 N.W.2d at 159 (citing Couch on Insurance § 45:411, at 782-83). Considering the extensive use of the ATV by Jozette and other children, and considering Brittany's testimony regarding delegation, it is for a jury to determine whether Hansons, in light of their conduct, usage, and practice, impliedly consented to the use of the ATV.