rrg956 said:
CVC 17707 and 17708 definately puts you, as the person who signed and verified the application, on the hook for any liability resulting from accidents where your son is found to be at fault. However, CVC 17709 caps said liability to CA state minimum insurance amounts of 15K/30K. If you really want to sleep good at night, you might consider upping your ex-wife's insurance coverage to 250K/500K until your son turns 18.
PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY NOR SHOULD THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN BE CONSIDERED LEGAL ADVICE.
My response:
RRG: You would be absolutely correct if mother and father were living together. But, in this situation, Family Law statutes come into play.
You see, in our writer's scenario, he is the NCP; i.e., visiting parent. He does not have custody or control of his minor child.
Therefore, our writer is off the hook. This is one time you'll be glad you didn't have custody of your child. So read the following very carefully, and you'll see you have NO liability in your, particular, situation. So, go ahead, let them sue you if your son is in an accident.
No vicarious liability by reason of parent-child relationship: The parent-child relationship does not itself render parents vicariously liable for their minor child's torts. [See generally, Hagerty v. Powers (1885) 66 Cal. 368, 5 P 622] Any vicarious liability attaches to the parents only under general tort law principles (i.e., potential respondeat superior liability if child is parent's agent or employee). [See, e.g., Kallenberg v. Long (1924) 68 Cal.App. 317, 229 P 57]
Recognized theories of liability against parents: However, parental liability may lie under any of the following circumstances:
· The parent has knowledge of the child's prior misconduct;
· The parent signed the child's driver's license application or the child drives the parent's car with permission;
· The child is guilty of willful misconduct;
· The child was given access to firearms;
· The child defaced another's property with graffiti; or
· The child is convicted of a crime and ordered to pay restitution to the victim.
Liability where parent knew of prior misconduct--negligent supervision or failure to warn: Parents are liable for their minor child's torts if they knew or had reason to know (typically, from past misconduct) it is necessary to control and supervise the child to prevent future harm to others and they failed to exercise reasonable care to do so. [See Singer v. Marx (1956) 144 Cal.App.2d 637, 301 P.2d 440-- mother had notice of child's dangerous rock-throwing through neighbor's prior complaints (but nonsuit for father affirmed because he had no knowledge); Ellis v. D'Angelo (1953) 116 Cal.App.2d 310, 253 P.2d 675--parents failed to warn baby-sitter of child's known habitual tendency to violently attack people; Costello v. Hart (1972) 23 Cal.App.3d 898, 100 Cal.Rptr. 554--grandmother had reason to know of child's misbehavior in running around retail store, endangering other customers; and Rest.2d Torts § 316]
Liability for child's driving misfeasance:
(1) Where parent signed minor's license application: Parents are required to sign and verify their minor child's application for a driver's license (Ca Vehicle § 17701). By so signing, they become liable for the minor's torts in driving a car. [Ca Vehicle § 17707--civil liability for minor's "negligent or wrongful act or omission" in driving is "hereby imposed" on parent signer; but see Ca Vehicle § 17710--signer not liable where minor acting as agent or servant for someone else]
However, the parent signer's liability is limited to $15,000 for injury or death of one person, $30,000 for more than one, and $5,000 for property damage. And, the parent cannot be held liable for punitive damages based on child's wrongful conduct. [Ca Vehicle § 17709]
(2) Where minor driving with parents' permission: Parents are jointly and severally liable with their minor child for damages proximately resulting from the "negligent or wrongful act or omission" of the minor (whether licensed or unlicensed) in driving a motor vehicle with the parents' express or implied permission. [Ca Vehicle § 17708]
But again, Ca Vehicle § 17709 applies to cap the parents' maximum damages exposure (above). [Ca Vehicle § 17709]
Liability for child's willful misconduct: Two separate statutes render parents liable for their minor child's "willful misconduct":
(1) Imputed joint and several liability, generally: A minor's "willful misconduct" causing injury or death to another, or damage to the property of another, "shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor" for civil liability purposes. Subject to a dollar ceiling (below), the parent (or guardian's) imputed liability is joint and several with the child. [Ca Civil § 1714.1(a) (emphasis added); see Thrifty-Tel, Inc. v. Bezenek (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 1559, 1571-1572, 54 Cal.Rptr.2d 468, 476--parents liable for computer "hacking" committed by sons and sons' friends using parents' computer]
(a) Cap on imputed liability amount: The maximum imputed liability is $27,000 (eff. 1/1/99, see below) for each of the minor's torts. [Ca Civil § 1714(a); Ca Rules of Court Rule Appendix, Div. VII, Rule 3]
Further, in the case of injury to a person, a parent's (or guardian's) imputed liability is limited to medical, dental and hospital expenses. [Ca Civil § 1714.1(a)]
REMEMBER THE ABOVE LAWS PRESUPPOSE THAT BOTH PARENTS ARE MARRIED AND LIVING TOGETHER WITH THE OFFENDING CHILD.
HERE'S THE SECRET PHRASE IN REGARD TO DIVORCED PARENTS:
While it is true that if you were the signatory to the license application that you would be liable, but in a divorce situation where you cannot be around (be in custody) to monitor the driving habits of your child, "A minor's "willful or negligent misconduct" causing injury or death to another, or damage to the property of another, "shall be imputed to the parent or guardian having custody and control of the minor" for civil liability purposes.""
Your ex-wife is the only person, along with your child, who would be on the hook!!
IAAL
[Edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE on 11-27-2000 at 03:29 AM]
