Court Opinion

ID: 9606900
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 02:53:59.143951+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:36.278557
License: Public Domain

Undercofler, Presiding Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the majority opinion that this case comes within the family purpose doctrine. However, I am not prepared to agree that a car owner is never liable under the family purpose doctrine where the permittee allows a third party to operate the car contrary to the owner’s instructions and without the permittee being present in the car. Without belaboring the point I am inclined to the view that a permittee under the family purpose doctrine *278becomes, in effect, what may be described as a substituted owner with the same authority over the use of the car as the actual owner, and the actual owner cannot limit his liability by special instructions. Under this view the actual owner incurs the same liability the family permittee incurs.