The “family purpose doctrine” or “family car doctrine” is likely quite familiar to casualty adjusters that work on auto claims. However, since many attorneys use the family purpose doctrine to further a tactic of suing every possibly responsible person in an auto accident case, it may be helpful to review some of the limitations of this legal doctrine.

     The family purpose doctrine is a theory of vicarious liability. Vicarious liability is liability that a supervisory person or entity has for the conduct of another person or entity, based on their relationship. Vicarious liability is most often raised in contexts related to employment, where an employer can be vicariously liable for the acts of an employee. However, Oregon courts have made vehicle owners vicariously liable for a family member’s negligent operation of a vehicle in certain situations. In Arizpe v. Vankirk, 204 Or App 372, 374, 129 P.3d 718 (2005), the court noted that vicarious liability under the family purpose doctrine “is based upon the theory that when an automobile is maintained by the owner for the pleasure or convenience of his family, a member of the family who uses it * * * with the knowledge and consent of the owner is the agent of the owner and the latter is responsible for his negligence.”

     In order to address a family purpose doctrine claim, the ownership situation should be analyzed. In Arizpe v. Vankirk, 204 Or App 372, 374, 129 P.3d 718 (2005), the court stated, “Whether the family purpose doctrine applies in a particular case depends on who owns the car.”

     Ownership is a question of fact. A vehicle title is evidence of ownership according to statutory law. ORS 802.240 (1) states that, “In all actions, suits or criminal proceedings when the title to, or right of possession of, any vehicle is involved, the record of title, as it appears in the files and records of the Department of Transportation, is prima facie evidence of ownership or right to possession of the vehicle.” However, the presumption of ownership from a title may be rebutted. City of Pendleton v. One 1998 Dodge Stratus 4 Door, 180 Or App 72, 42 P.3d 339 (“Given proper proof, the finder of fact can conclude that the presumption of ownership created by ORS 803.010 has been rebutted and that, notwithstanding a party's listing as an owner on the certificate of title, he or she is not, in fact, an owner of the vehicle.”). In some cases, the plaintiff will attempt to prove that a parent is the owner of a vehicle even when the vehicle is registered in the name of his or her child. However, even if the parent purchased the vehicle for his or her child, the parent will not be considered the owner unless there is some evidence the parent retained an ownership interest or displayed some control over the vehicle. Barber v. George, 144 Or App 370, 374 (1996).

     Similarly, if the title owner of a vehicle does not maintain control of a vehicle, the family purpose doctrine arguably does not apply. See French v. Barrett, 84 Or App 52, 55 fn 4 (1987) (assuming that the family purpose doctrine requires some evidence of control of the vehicle by the title owner, the jury could have inferred the title owner had control). This situation could arise if the title owner of a vehicle gives the vehicles to a grown child or an ex-spouse, but no one bothers to modify the title of the vehicle.

     Joint ownership is another important issue. The family purpose doctrine does not produce vicarious liability between joint owners. In Bolton v. Schimming, 226 Or 330, 333-34 (1961), the court held that when a vehicle is owned by joint owners, each owner has a right of control for his or her “individual purpose”, which is the antithesis of use for a “family purpose.”

     Another issue is whether the owner and driver are “family members.” This issue may not be straight forward, and it could be a fact intensive issue. In French v. Barrett, 84 Or App 52, 55-56, 733 P.2d 89 (1987), the court addressed whether an owner’s daughter’s fiancé was a family member of the owner. The court held that although there was no blood or marriage relationship, the circumstances surrounding the relationship ought to be considered to determine whether to apply the family purpose doctrine.

     The mere fact that two people are family members is not a sufficient basis for applying the family purpose doctrine. The vehicle must be maintained for a family purpose. See Moudy v. Boylan, 219 Or 448, 461, 347 P.2d 983 (1959) (in case involving adult son’s operation of his parents’ vehicle, there was insufficient evidence supporting family purpose doctrine when facts essentially involved two separate families in two separate households).

     Finally, if a family member exceeds his or her express or implied permission, the family purpose doctrine should not apply. Truck Ins. Exchange v. Alliance Plumbing, 274 Or 435 (1976)

     If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the author, Flavio A. Ortiz (alex@lerlaw.com) at 503-768-9600.

© 1999 - 2010 Lachenmeier Enloe Rall & Heinson