21.11 Family Purpose Doctrine

• Jurisdiction: Arizona

21.11 Family Purpose Doctrine. Arizona recognizes the family purpose doctrine.⁴¹⁰ The Arizona Supreme Court first did so in Benton v. Regeser ⁴¹¹ in 1919, describing the doctrine as follows:

[A parent] who furnishes an automobile for the pleasure and convenience of the members of his family makes the use of the machine for the above purposes his affair or business, and … any member of the family driving the machine with the [parent’s] consent, either express or implied, is the [parent’s] agent.⁴¹²

The Arizona Supreme Court more recently stated that, “[t]he family purpose doctrine subjects the owner of a [vehicle] to vicarious liability when the owner provides an automobile for the general use by members of the family … and when the vehicle is so used by a family member.”⁴¹³

The family purpose doctrine is loosely grounded in agency principles, and falls under the “agent or servant” exception to the abolition of joint and several liability set forth in A.R.S. § 12-2506(D)(2).⁴¹⁴ It is also supported by public policy and justice: “If an instrumentality of this kind is placed in the hands of his family by a father, for the family’s pleasure, comfort, and entertainment, the dictates of natural justice should require that the owner should be responsible for its negligent operation, because only by doing so, as a general rule, can substantial justice be attained.”⁴¹⁵ “[S]ocial usefulness is its primary justification; it provides for an injured party’s recovery from the financially responsible person ¾ the family head ¾ deemed most able to control to whom the car is made available.”⁴¹⁶

The doctrine is applied “broadly” in Arizona.⁴¹⁷ For example, in Brown v. Stogsdill, ⁴¹⁸ Division Two of the Arizona Court of Appeals applied the family purpose doctrine to a situation in which an 18 year-old who lived with his parents, but had his own employment and a substantial degree of independence, and who had purchased his own automobile with some financial assistance from his parents:

[I]n states such as Arizona taking the broad view of the family purpose doctrine, the fact that the decedent was using the vehicle solely for [the son’s] own purpose and pleasure at the time of the accident would not automatically rule out the application of the family purpose doctrine.⁴¹⁹

Thus, a child’s comfort and convenience is a satisfactory “requisite” for application of the doctrine.⁴²⁰ The doctrine has also been utilized to hold a husband liable for his dead wife’s negligent operation of the family car.⁴²¹

In Young v. Beck, ⁴²² the Arizona Supreme Court declined to abrogate and confirmed the continued...