Parent’s Found to Have Impliedly Consented to Their 14 Year Old Son’s Use of Their Car, When Their Son Took Their Car Without Their Permission, Yet They Failed to Report the Car as Being Stolen to the Police.
This is regarded as one of the leading cases in New York involving the application of the “Permissive Use Doctrine”, of an automobile. It was tried before a Westchester County jury before and during the immediate aftermath of the tragic 9/11 terrorist attack.
The driver of the defendant’s late model luxury Lexis was the son of the vehicle’s owner, Mr. and Mrs. Goldoff. Despite Mr and Mrs. Goldoff’s explicit instructions to their son for him never to drive their car, he did. The juvenile son disobeyed his parent’s instructions, and took the keys out of his father’s jacket without his father’s knowledge. On the day of the accident, the driver, the Goldoff’s 14 year-old son, went through a red light at breakneck speed and crashed into the side of the plaintiff’s car, crushing the plaintiff’s femur which required surgical repair. Fortunately, he had no residuals and no lost income.
Although no one disputed that the child negligently drove the car, the real issue in the case was whether his parents, and therefore, whether their insurance carrier, was accountable for the loss under the doctrine of “implied consent”. The parents claimed that their child drove their car without their express or implied consent, and that they therefore were not responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries. As a consequence, th defendant took a “no pay” position and the matter proceeded to trial.
At trial, the plaintiff proved that the son had been driving his parents’ car , allegedly without their permission, but with their knowledge, since he was 11 years of age. He had taken the car that night, once again, without their permission and the parents had a pretty good idea of where he was and where he could be found. Although the parents could have reported the car as being “stolen” to the local police, which would have resulted in the car being located and their son being apprehended, Mr and Mrs. Goldoff chose not to do so, since they feared that Child Protective Services would be involved, and they wanted to avoid family court intervention in their private family matters. They did this, however knowing full well that every day that this car was in a juvenile’s possession, he was a threat and menace to himself and anyone in his path of travel.
Based upon these set of facts, the jury concluded that by not reporting the car as being stolen to the police, the parents and car owners had impliedly consented to their child’s unlawful use of the car.
After a verdict for the plaintiff on liability, the defendant offered $10,000. Plaintiff rejected the offer. The jury returned a verdict of $195,000.
