Quote Originally Posted by latigo View Post
It no less "appears" that the Family Purpose Doctrine was imposed here than it should appear to you that the judgment may have been unwarranted and speculating on the issue of "negligent entrustment" and the presence or absence of "intentional and malicious" conduct of the sixteen year old!

Furthermore, it seems that you have also overlooked the possibility that Section 56-1-110 of the South Carolina Code was applied in imputing liability to the mother; which does not depend upon intentional and malicious conduct on the part of an uninsured minor or negligent entrustment.
Youíre the one that brought about the family purpose doctrine without any support, either way, that it was or wasnít applicable. Your inference was that it is applicable. I brought about negligent entrustment as it could be a possibility but note I said a possibility.


The statute you cited requires the parent held liable for negligent or willful misconduct to be the person who signed for the child to be issued a driverís license. Did the mother sign the documents to allow the op to obtain a driverís license?

While each of them may be a possibility, none of them are supported by the info provided. While I asked an open ended question seeking the op provide the basis mom was also held liable, you seemed to bring possibilities to the discussion not as furthering the conversation but rather as an attempt to belittle me.

Well, it didnít work. My statement was correct as written. Was yours? Chances are the first wasnít but in both cases the answer will likely never be known.