60.340 Negligence Amplified; Family Purpose Doctrine

60.340 Negligence Amplified; Family Purpose Doctrine When a member of a family provides an automobile for the use, comfort, pleasure, enjoyment, and convenience of members of the family living in the same home, that person is liable for the negligent acts of every member of that family who live in the same home and use the car for these purposes. Hubert v. Harpe, 181 Ga. 168 (1935); relationship to owner, adult son Levy v. Rubin, 181 Ga. 187 (1935); relationship to owner, sister Goldstein v. Johnson, 64 Ga. App. 31 (1940); relationship to owner, husband Hexter v. Burgess, 52 Ga. App. 819 (1936); relationship to owner, wife Ficklen v. Heichelheim, 49 Ga. App. 777 (1934); holding that car owner does not have to be head of household Bailey v. Butler, 199 Ga. App. 753 (1991) Simmons v. Hill, 242 Ga. App. 22 (2000); child must live at parents' residence The fact that a person lives in the same place and is a member of the same family as a car owner does not, however, make the owner automatically liable for the use of the car under the family purpose doctrine. If the user of the car has his/her own car or uses the car without permission or for some reason is not one of the persons in the family ordinarily allowed to use the car, this principle would not apply. Brown v. Porto, 106 Ga. App. 226 (1962); relationship to owner, daughter Grahl v. McMath, 59 Ga. App. 247 (1938); relationship to owner, minor son Bryant v. Keen, 43 Ga. App. 251 (1931); relationship to owner, son-in-law Dougherty v. Woodward, 21 Ga. App. 427 (1917); relationship to owner, son aged twenty years Marques v. Ross, 105 Ga. App. 133 (1961); relationship to owner, adult son; the test at all times is whether the person driving the car was the agent of the owner under the facts of the case Durden v. Maddox, 73 Ga. App. 491 (1946) Medlin v. Church, 157 Ga. App. 876 (1981) McCray v. Hunter, 157 Ga. App. 509 (1981)