21.11 Family Purpose Doctrine

JurisdictionArizona

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...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT