Pensacola, FL Personal Injury Law Firms & Lawyers | Page 4 Results

The general rule, which is derived from the common law rule that an owner who permitted his vehicle to be used by another was not ordinarily liable for the negligence of the driver applied equally when the driver was a member of the owner's family. Thus, when the driver was insolvent, i.e. judgment proof or financially irresponsible, the family avoided responsibility unscathed for the injury to others arising out of the vehicle's negligent operation. As a result of these unjust results some states began to adopt statutes which allowed the owner liable for permissive use, and to stretch the principles of agency law to develop what we now know today as the family car or family purpose doctrine. Jurisdictions who have and now adopt the doctrine, holding that an on automobile owner is liable for the negligent use of the car by a member of his or her family when it can be revealed that the same automobile was purchased and or is maintained by the owner of the family for purposes of pleasure and convenience, and that it is at the time of the loss so being used, with the owners implied or express consent the liability imposed under the family purpose doctrine does not arise out of the familial relationship, but rather as a variant of the master servant relationship under the common law of agency. The Washington State Supreme Court set out the foundation for this concept very simply when they wrote that one who furnishes a vehicle for the customary use of members of his or her family, "makes the transportation of such persons by the vehicle his affair, that is, his business, and anyone driving the vehicle for that purpose with his consent, express or implied, whether a member of his family or another, is his agent." However, this agency justification for the doctrine has been, in a past, afflicted with the criticism as a legal fiction, and some courts have instead advanced policy arguments as their basis for the doctrine. However, if you find yourself in a jurisdiction in which the doctrine has been accepted, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing certain elements to demonstrate that this doctrine is applicable. Such elements include, and inquire if, the defendant actually owned, controlled or maintained the vehicle, as a family purpose vehicle, that the user was a member of the family entitled to that use, and that the actual use at the time of the collision was for a family purpose, under the general permission extended by the owner. What is significant about the aforementioned is the fact that the doctrine need not be applied if it can be demonstrated that the defendant is not a family member or in a familial relationship. Courts on the other hand have helped defined what a familial relationship or family relationship is by explaining that the operators and owners relationship is one of social status where there is also a legal or moral obligation of support, and there is a corresponding state of dependents for that support. Bear in mind that this doctrine has not been limited to vehicles owned by the head of the household solely. It has been applied to automobiles owned by mothers, sons, and daughters. Proof of registered ownership is not dispositive determinative of the applicability of the family car doctrine. Also note that it has been held in Washington State that the party sought to be held liable must have been an owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. In order to render the doctrine applicable, the plaintiff must show that at the time of the accident vehicle was being used for either the express or implied permission of the owner, and that there was no deviation from the permission granted. For example, if the permission was limited to using the vehicle only for going to and from a local convenience store and the collision occurred outside of that permission than permissive use will be in question. Provided your limited fact pattern, the answer is hard to provide. A full investigation, by sav

She should not be able to do this under any circumstances. Does your attorney know about this? Give the attorney a deadline to provide the paperwork and if not provided, contact The Florida Bar Association and file a complaint.

Yes, unless the person was trespassing on the dog owners land, there is a case (assuming no provocation as well) Call me by clicking the link to the left.