CAR ACCIDENT INVOLVING A MINOR

[weetam]

My son (17 years old at the time, now 18) was involved in a car accident . A friend of his let my son borrow her car to go to the store. On the way to the store my son lost control of the car & hit a parked car . He was issued a summons for "reckless driving" which was reduced in court to a minor violation when it was proven that he was not reckless. It is now 2 months later & my son is being harrassed by the father of the girl to pay for some of the damage . The damage is suppose to be $9,000; he was requested to pay $3,000. We never saw any paperwork on the estimated damage ; we do not know what insurance coverage the car carried . It was a company car that the father loaned his daughter for school . Here is my question . Is my son liable for any of the damage ? Does he being a minor have any impact on what he is responsible for ? THANK YOU.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by weetam:
My son (17 years old at the time, now 18) was involved in a car accident . A friend of his let my son borrow her car to go to the store. On the way to the store my son lost control of the car & hit a parked car . He was issued a summons for "reckless driving" which was reduced in court to a minor violation when it was proven that he was not reckless. It is now 2 months later & my son is being harrassed by the father of the girl to pay for some of the damage . The damage is suppose to be $9,000; he was requested to pay $3,000. We never saw any paperwork on the estimated damage ; we do not know what insurance coverage the car carried . It was a company car that the father loaned his daughter for school . Here is my question . Is my son liable for any of the damage ? Does he being a minor have any impact on what he is responsible for ? THANK YOU.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

It makes no difference that your son is a minor; only that he was a licensed driver. Your son is "negligent" and responsible for the damages, in their entirety - - if there was nothing wrong with the car that contributed to the cause of the incident. The owner is being very generous with your son for not charging your son for the full amount of the damages. You or your son have no entitlement to know whether or not insurance covered the vehicle. If the owner had the foresight and prudence to buy insurance, then you are not allowed, under any law, to take advantage of that fact. The insurance company, however, will probably pay for the damages if the owner has turned the matter over to them, and then the insurance company will come after your son for reimbursement. You and your son are entitled to an estimate of the damages (3 would be nice), and your son would then be obligated to pay for the lowest estimate. If the matter is turned over to the insurance company, your son would, nevertheless, be obligated to reimburse the owner's deductible to the owner, in addition to the principle amount of repair costs.

Good luck.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited April 19, 2000).]

 

[lars coltrane]

Got a question: See what you think. Kid is a permissive user and the terms of the policy are therefore extended to him. Therefore, any damage he caused would be covered under the policy less the deductible. The carrier will not (or cannot) seek subro as they sold the contract and bought the risk. The family that owned the car does not have the right to right to subrogate, as that would belong to their insurance, and as mentioned, they cannot. The only issue I am having with this response is the collateral source rule. However, gut reaction strikes me as saying that the permissive giver cannot go after the permissive user if the damages were paid by their own carrier. In essence, they have been made whole (less any deductible).

Let me know your thougths (p.s. I am have not looked at the collateral source cases to see how they apply in this context)

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial, Helvetica, Verdana">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lars coltrane:
Got a question: See what you think. Kid is a permissive user and the terms of the policy are therefore extended to him. Therefore, any damage he caused would be covered under the policy less the deductible. The carrier will not (or cannot) seek subro as they sold the contract and bought the risk. The family that owned the car does not have the right to right to subrogate, as that would belong to their insurance, and as mentioned, they cannot. The only issue I am having with this response is the collateral source rule. However, gut reaction strikes me as saying that the permissive giver cannot go after the permissive user if the damages were paid by their own carrier. In essence, they have been made whole (less any deductible).

Let me know your thougths (p.s. I am have not looked at the collateral source cases to see how they apply in this context)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dear Lars:

Insofar as liability to 3rd parties are concerned, you would be correct, i.e., the damage this "permissive user" caused to the "third party" vehicle is concerned, and the assumption here, since it was not mentioned, is that the car owner's insurance company paid for the "third party vehicle" damage. A car owner's vicarious liability for damages caused by "permissive users" *** cannot exceed *** $15,000 per injury, $30,000 per occurrence and $5,000 for property damage.

In this case though, there was the issue of the 1st party's own vehicle damage, to which the owner is entitled to claim damages from the "permissive driver" - - despite insurance having paid for the damages, because the insurance company is entitled, under most modern policies, to reimbursement directly from the permissive driver "tortfeasor."

The liability provisions of "permissive use" are strictly for the benefit of innocent "third persons" and for the protection of the vehicle "owner."

So, since the kid damaged his friend's vehicle, the kid is directly on the hook for payment of those damages - regardless of insurance owned by the 1st party; that is, it makes no difference to the tortfeasor if there's insurance or not - - one of them, the insurance company or the car owner, must be made whole, thus leaving the kid on the hook. If the "permissive driver kid" had his own insurance policy, then he could turn the vehicle owner's claim over to his own insurance company for payment. Without insurance, the kid would be directly responsible to the car owner.

Thanks for your inquiry and it's always a pleasure speaking with you.

IAAL

------------------
By reading the “Response” to your question or comment, you agree that: The opinions expressed herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE" are designed to provide educational information only and are not intended to, nor do they, offer legal advice. Opinions expressed to you in this site are not intended to, nor does it, create an attorney-client relationship, nor does it constitute legal advice to any person reviewing such information. No electronic communication with "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE," on its own, will generate an attorney-client relationship, nor will it be considered an attorney-client privileged communication. You further agree that you will obtain your own attorney's advice and counsel for your questions responded to herein by "I AM ALWAYS LIABLE."



[This message has been edited by I AM ALWAYS LIABLE (edited April 19, 2000).]