Family Car/Automobile

Comprehending laws and contracts is impossible, unless we first learn the meaning of the words and phrases they contain.

Moderator: notmartha

Post Reply
User avatar
notmartha
Posts: 728
Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 1:16 pm

Family Car/Automobile

Post by notmartha » Fri Jun 30, 2017 7:30 am

Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1968
FAMILY AUTOMOBILE DOCTRINE.

The doctrine is that one who owns and maintains an automobile for the general use of his household makes use of automobile for such purposes a part of his business so that any member using automobile for those purposes under general authority to do so becomes his representative, for whose negligence he is responsible. Durso v. A. D. Cozzolino, Inc., 128 Conn. 24, 20 A.2d 392, 394.

It is an extension of the principle of respondeat superior to the relation created by operation of family use automobile. Buss v. Wachsmith, 190 Wash. 673, 70 P.2d 417, 421. See, also, Family
Car Doctrine and Family Purpose Doctrine.

It is based on theory that members of family were engaged in a joint enterprise or that child was agent of parents. Paulson v. McMillan, 8 Wash.2d 295, 111 P.2d 983, 989.

If an automobile is owned and maintained by a family corporation for general use of a family, such as that of corporation's manager and one of its principal stockholders, corporation may be held liable under the "family automobile doctrine" to third parties. Durso v. A. D. Cozzolino, Inc., 128 Conn. 24, 20 A.2d 392, 394.
FAMILY CAR.

Automobile used to send owner's children to school was "family car." Coleman v.
Rollo, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 391, 392.
FAMILY CAR DOCTRINE.

The doctrine rests upon the basis that the automobile is furnished by the husband in his individual capacity and as common-law head of the family for the use of the family, and not as the agent of the community. Donn v. Kunz, 52 Ariz. 219, 79 P.2d 965. It rests on theory that operator is husband's agent and runs automobile in husband's "business," Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598, 24 P.2d 99; that wife is husband's agent in carrying out one of the purposes for which the automobile is purchased and owned, Moffitt v. Krueger, 11 Wash.2d 658, 120 P. 2d 512, 513.

Under the doctrine, a father furnishing automobile for pleasure and convenience of family makes the use of automobile by family his business and any member of family driving automobile with father's express or implied consent is the father's agent and the father is liable for the member's negligence. Donn v. Kunz, 52 Ariz. 219, 79 P.2d 965, 966, 967.
See, also, Family Automobile Doctrine and Family Purpose Doctrine.

FAMILY CAR DOCTRINE
The person upon whom it is sought to fasten liability under the doctrine must own, provide, or maintain an automobile for the general use, pleasure, and convenience of the family. Liability under the doctrine is not confined to owner or driver. It depends upon control and use. A widow, wife, or mother may be liable as well as a husband or father. Hart v. Hogan, 173 Wash. 598, 24 P.2d 99. To bring a case within doctrine, it must be shown that automobile was in fact a family pleasure automobile, but automobile purchased and used for business purposes may come within the doctrine, where it is also used for family pleasure. ; Dillon v. Burnett, 197 Wash. 371, 85 P.2d 656, 658.
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, 1979
Family automobile doctrine.

In a number of jurisdictions, when an automobile is maintained by the owner thereof for the general use and convenience of his or her family, such owner is liable for the negligence of a member of the family, having general authority to drive the car, while it is being used as such family car; that is, for the pleasure or convenience of the family or a member of it. This doctrine has been rejected, superseded, or limited in its application, in most states.

The doctrine rests upon the basis that the automobile is furnished by the husband in his individual capacity and as common-law head of the family for the use of the family, and not as the agent of the community. Under the doctrine, a father furnishing automobile for pleasure and convenience of family makes the use of automobile by family his business and any member of family driving automobile with father's express or implied consent is the father's agent and the father is liable for the member’s negligence. Donn v. Kunz, 52 Ariz. 219, 79 P.2d 965, 966, 967.
See also Family group; Family purpose doctrine, which are synonymous terms.
Family car doctrine.

See Family automobile doctrine.
For further reading:

"The Family Automobile and the Family Purpose Doctrine," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 1: Iss. 2, Article 3. Treanor, Walter E. (1926)
Available at: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol1/iss2/3

"Automobiles - The Community Errand and the Family Purpose Doctrine," 7 La. L. Rev. Lawrence B. Sandoz Jr.,(1947)
Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol7/iss4/4

"Master and Servant: Family purpose doctrine in connection with family automobile," 9 Marq. L. Rev. 198, E. E. J., (1925).
Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol9/iss3/8
Post Reply