Family purpose doctrine

The family purpose doctrine is "a court-created legal fiction that employs agency principles to impose vicarious liability on a head of the household for the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a family member." In a typical case involving the doctrine, the so-called "head of the household" has given their family members permission to drive their car "for their general use, pleasure, and convenience," i.e., a "family purpose." Furthermore, plaintiffs in most American courts that follow the doctrine can prove the car was being used for a family purpose "merely by showing that it was being used by a family member with the defendant's consent." The underlying theory of the doctrine is that "the driver of a family car, in pursuit of recreation or pleasure, is engaged in the owner's business and is viewed as either the agent or servant of the owner." In some instances, the doctrine may apply to more than just traditional cars, such as motorbikes, trucks, and motor boats. Moreover, a plaintiff's family purpose doctrine claim does not necessarily fail if "the defendant has provided a separate vehicle for each licensed driver in the family, so that each family member ordinarily operates his or her own vehicle."

In the US, this is primarily a state-level rule with considerable variation in its application. For example, in Arizona, the family purpose doctrine is applied very broadly and holds parents liable even for the negligence of a child driving a motor vehicle in defiance of driving restrictions placed upon him. In Georgia, the 'family purpose' liability extends to third parties allowed by the teenage driver to operate the car. Georgia also extends the rule to adult children in some cases and explicitly extends the rule to family boats.

In Colorado, on the other hand, the same term is used to describe joint and several liability for household bills.

Around the 1910s, when automobiles became affordable for most Americans, significant social and economic changes followed. Specifically, courts across the United States faced new legal issues regarding car accidents. In particular, policy issues from the "parade of litigants seeking to recover damages arising in such accidents brought about some modifications of the standard theories of liability in order to dovetail with the exigencies of the automotive revolution." One of the "modifications" included the family purpose doctrine.

For plaintiffs, states that recognize the family purpose doctrine allow "any person suffering injury or loss as a consequence of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle used by a family member..." to sue "the family member who furnished the vehicle."

Categories of potential family purpose doctrine defendants include "the head of a family, the owner of a vehicle, the member of a family who furnished a vehicle to another member of the family, or the member of a family who controlled other family members' use of a vehicle." In most cases, "liability will be based upon actual ownership of a motor vehicle since, in most cases, it is the owner who makes the vehicle available for use by other members of the family." However, the plaintiff does not necessarily have to prove exclusive ownership. "For example, even though a husband and wife purchase a vehicle using joint funds and register the vehicle in both of their names as co-owners, one spouse may be considered to have "furnished" the vehicle to the other spouse." Furthermore, in the case of someone who transferred title to a car to a different family member, the latter could be held liable under the family purpose doctrine "if the transfer is anything less than a sale for full and fair consideration." Defendants using a vehicle that a corporation has title in (rather than the individual) for a family purpose can additionally be held liable. In such a case, while a defendant, as the car's original owner, could possibly "avoid liability by transferring all incidents of ownership of a vehicle to a family business, the defendant will remain liable under the family purpose doctrine where, at the time of the accident in which the plaintiff is injured, the defendant retains some degree of personal control over the vehicle's use."

In some states, statutory law determines the people for which the family purpose doctrine applies. These states have a similar law to Nevada, which provides that the car owner is liable for negligent driving "by the owner's wife, husband, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, or other immediate member of family if operation is with owner's express or implied permission."

When someone sues another person via the family purpose doctrine, the respective state court normally has the power to oversee the case. However, federal district courts may handle family purpose doctrine cases "if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are satisfied."