Dad Liable For Son’s Negligence
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 645
Tags:
None
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has recently ruled that a father who held title to his teenage son’s car must go to trial on the issue of the dad’s liability for the son’s negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle.
The father’s potential liability is based upon the legal doctrine of “negligent entrustment”.
Under this doctrine, negligent entrustment occurs when the owner of an automobile “entrusts its operation to a person whom he knows, or by the exercise of due care should have known, to be an incompetent or reckless driver, . . . likely to cause injuries to others”. The negligent entrustment doctrine undertakes to impose liability on an owner of a car not otherwise responsible for the conduct of the driver of the car.
Direct liability for negligent entrustment may be imposed when there is evidence of the defendant’s record ownership of a vehicle.
In this case, Tart v. Martin, the defendant father’s nineteen-year-old son ran a stop sign injuring another motorist and killing himself. The injured motorist sued the teenage son’s father alleging that he was liable for the injury under the theory of negligent entrustment. The son’s Ford automobile was titled in the father’s name and the son lived at home with his parents. However, the parents said they never operated the car. They said they purchased it for the son because he was a minor when the car was purchased and therefore could not contract for the car. The evidence was that the son made regular payments to his dad for the car, paid all repair insurance and other cost. The son also kept all keys to the car.
Evidence was presented that the son had a speeding ticket and was involved in three motor vehicle collisions. In defense, the father signed an Affidavit alleging that none of the collisions were the son’s fault.
The Court of Appeals wrote that: “The key issue is whether evidence of the Martins’ son’s single 1993 moving violation and his three accidents in 1993 and 1994 creates a material issue of fact as to whether the Martins knew or should have known that their son was an unsafe driver. The Court of Appeals ruled that it does and reversed the Trial Court who dismissed the claim against the father. Therefore, the father will have to stand trial for the negligence of the son. At that trial the jury will determine whether or not the father knew or should have known that his son was an unsafe driver. If a jury rules against the father on that issue, the father will be liable for whatever damages the jury will assess for the injuries.
This case demonstrates the risk of having the record ownership of a motor vehicle. Simply having title to a motor vehicle in ones name creates a risk of liability.
There are other theories of liability which would hold a record titleholder liable for the negligence of a driver. Negligent entrustment is just one of those doctrines.
In the Tart v. Martin case described above, the claim against the mother was dismissed because the mother was not on the title to the motor vehicle.