Starr v. Hill
Tennessee Supreme Court
353 S.W.3d 478 (2011)
Father (codefendant) bought his sixteen-year-old son (codefendant) a car per a divorce decree, though the son lived with his mother who handled day-to-day parenting while Father retained joint decision-making over extracurricular activities; when the son caused an accident injuring Starr (plaintiff) while driving his sister and her friend home from a holiday shopping trip, Starr sued both under a family-purpose-doctrine theory against Father, who argued the doctrine didn't apply since he didn't live with his son and had no control over the car's use, and the trial court granted Father summary judgment before the appellate court reversed.
Whether, under the family-purpose doctrine recognized in some jurisdictions, a parent who provides a child with a vehicle used for family purposes with the parent's permission bears vicarious liability for the child's negligent driving.