Starr v. Hill

353 S.W.3d 478 (2011)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

On Christmas Eve 2002, S, who was sixteen years old, was returning from a holiday shopping trip with his sister and her friend, when the vehicle he was driving collided with another vehicle. P filed suit against S and F. P asserted that S's negligent conduct caused the accident and F, as the owner of the vehicle, was liable based on the family purpose doctrine. S's parents were divorced, and F did not live in the same household as S. F, as required by the terms of his divorce decree, had purchased the vehicle for S when he turned sixteen years old. F owned and insured the vehicle. S drove the vehicle. F moved for summary judgment, arguing that the family purpose doctrine was not applicable because he did not reside with S, he provided the vehicle only for the pleasure or comfort of S, not the family, and he did not have day-to-day control over S. P argued that F was a head of household under the family purpose doctrine and therefore the doctrine applied. The trial court granted F's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, ruling that the family purpose doctrine applied as a matter of law. F appealed.