Court Opinion

ID: 9740532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:36:54.449978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:18.717987
License: Public Domain

STEINMETZ, J.
(dissenting). I dissent from the result and the reasoning in this case.
There is no suggestion in this record that the word “custody” in the stipulation means legal custody. The plaintiffs’ attorney at argument agreed that it was his understanding that “custody” meant physical custody only and not legal custody. Even if Sharon Fesko had legal custody by the terms of sec. 343.15(1), Stats. 1977, the father, Charles, would still be the only person available to sign for the license. The statute states that only *401“if neither parent has custody” may another person having custody sign.
Sec. 343.15(1) and (2), Stats. 1977 is in derogation of the common law. But for the section of that statute, parents would not be liable for their minors’ negligent driving unless facts showed agency circumstances.
Through defining “parent” in sec. 343.15(1), Stats. 1977 as the majority has, other statutes are also affected and the original intent of the legislature will have been expanded judicially. Under the reasoning of the majority, the relationship of Sharon to Lon Fesko makes her a “parent” of Lon for purposes of the driver’s license statute. It is equally reasonable that this relationship makes her a “parent” for purposes of sec. 48.275(1) and (2), Stats., “Parents’ contribution to cost of court and legal services.”
The legislature in sec. 343.15(1), Stats. 1977 allowed more than parents to sign for a minor’s driver’s license. Included in the category of persons allowed to sign are:
(1) Either parent;
(2) or if neither parent has custody, then by
(3) the person or guardian having such custody; or
(4) by the applicant’s foster parent; or
(5) by the applicant’s employer.
Since Sharon Fesko does not qualify in any of the categories, the majority writes into the statute a new category — a stepmother with a particular relationship to the minor. The rule can vary on a case basis. If the legislature had so intended, it could have allowed a person having physical custody, but not legal custody, of a minor to sign. The legislature over the years of the statute’s existence has carefully added categories to the statute of persons who could sign, the latest being in 1980 when a minor’s foster parent was added. The court invades the *402province of the legislature by adding Lon Fesko’s stepmother, Sharon.
Making the giant step in reasoning as it did left only a short step to hold Lon’s father, Charles J. Fesko, liable under subsec. (2) of sec. 343.15, Stats. 1977. It is interesting to note that there is no reason in this record why the father did not sign for Lon’s license in the first place.
People should not be able to determine whether they qualify under a statute to act, but rather should fit within categories established by the legislature. A stepmother, such as Sharon, does not qualify as a parent, legal guardian, or foster parent and, therefore, her signing for Lon’s license had no legal effect.
I would reverse the judgment of the circuit court and let the legislature determine whether more identities should be added to the statute as potential driver’s license sponsors.