teen son in accident, no license/insurance

[mymeepey]

What is the name of your state? California

My teen aged son (17) borrowed his friend's car and hit another vehicle (07 Honda) as he was backing out of a parking space at a shopping center.(Minor damage to other vehicle only-no injuries) My son has only a driver's permit and does not have any insurance coverage of his own. 'The friend' (who is 18yrs old) has insurance coverage and the car is registered in his name. A report was taken at the scene and my son's information along with his friend's insurance was given to the other party. Now what is the best way to handle this situation?
I recognize my son was at fault and I assume full responsibility (financial and otherwise) for his actions. Since I do not have car insurance (I do not own a car) I am unfamiliar with insurance claim procedures. I have considered contacting the other party and offering to pay for repairs out of my pocket. A friend advised me to let the insurance companies handle it. Another friend told me the other party's insurance will pay for their own damages because they have full coverage on their new car and it will provide for uninsured motorist. I am not sure how to proceed but I do not want my son's friend to suffer any damages (i.e. increased premium etc) resulting from my son's stupidity. Please advise.

 

[moburkes]

The vehicle owner's insurance policy will probably pay the claim. The twist is that the owner allowed your son to drive. The insurance company is going to want to know if the owner KNEW that your son only had a permit. Was your son driving legally with the permit? Does CA required that a licensed driver over 18 or 21 be in the passenger seat?

Don't listen to what your friends tell you, because, unless they have read the victim's auto insurance policy, they don't know what coverages he does and does not have.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Well, you do have some problems. Whether or not you drive or own a car or have insurance, you as his parent are financially responsible, in most cases a person with a learner's permit is allowed on the parent's insurance at no added cost until they receive their license, then the rates increase, and provisional licenses have some restrictions for the first year. So you both have problems here in that YOU did not have insurance to cover him and that he was driving a car without a licensed driver over 25 with him. In addition there may be both DMV and other penalties and it is unlikely his friend's insurance will cover it. Also there is mandated reporting of accidents over a certain value. Here is the financial responsibility section from the DMV site:
---------------------------------------
Parents' or guardians' signatures - accepting liability for a minor

A minor’s application for a driver license must have the signatures of:

* Both parents, if the parents are California residents and have joint custody, or
* Both parents, if divorced, with joint custody, or
* One parent, if that parent has custody, or
* Guardians of the minor, if neither parent is living or has custody, or
* The person(s) having actual full and complete custody, if no legal guardian is appointed.

NOTE: Nonresident parents cannot sign the application form and cannot accept liability for a minor in California. Nonresident military parents stationed and living in California can sign the application form and accept liability for a minor.

When parents or guardians sign for a minor to get a driver license, they are stating that they will accept financial responsibility for that minor. Financial responsibility in California requires that drivers and vehicle owners carry the following minimum monetary limits:

* $15,000 for injury or death of 1 person per accident
* $30,000 for injury or death of 2 or more persons per accident
* $5,000 for any property damage per accident

Evidence of financial responsibility must be carried at all times in the vehicle. Most Californians maintain financial responsibility through insurance companies, which provide the policy holder with an identification card to be used as evidence of coverage. The card must state the insurance company's name and address, the period of coverage, and policy number.

 

[Zigner]

To be clear - in this case, the MAXIMUM the parent would be liable for is $5,000 in damage to the other vehicle. After that, it's the son's responsibility.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

To be clear - in this case, the MAXIMUM the parent would be liable for is $5,000 in damage to the other vehicle. After that, it's the son's responsibility.

And upon WHAT authority do you make such a claim? That is not what the DMV cite says, that is the minimum requirement to obtain a learner's permit, it doesn't limit their liability for damages caused by their minor child. OP doesn't have insurance at all, so they have failed to meet the state's financial responsibility requirements for the issuance of a learner's permit.

Please don't provide a response if you cannot provide correct information, OP needs to know accurate information, please don't confuse them.

 

[Zigner]

And upon WHAT authority do you make such a claim? That is not what the DMV cite says, that is the minimum requirement to obtain a learner's permit, it doesn't limit their liability for damages caused by their minor child. OP doesn't have insurance at all, so they have failed to meet the state's financial responsibility requirements for the issuance of a learner's permit.

Please don't provide a response if you cannot provide correct information, OP needs to know accurate information, please don't confuse them.

The parent is only required to maintain those levels. Under what theory do you claim that the parent is somehow responsible for this accident? Was there some negligence on the part of the parent? Absent some sort of negligence on the part of the parent, then they are responsible up to $5,000 for property damage.
Please tell me where (other then the summary of the law on the DMV site) that you come up with the information that the parent would somehow be liable for more...

 

[rmet4nzkx]

The parent is only required to maintain those levels. Under what theory do you claim that the parent is somehow responsible for this accident? Was there some negligence on the part of the parent? Absent some sort of negligence on the part of the parent, then they are responsible up to $5,000 for property damage.
Please tell me where (other then the summary of the law on the DMV site) that you come up with the information that the parent would somehow be liable for more...

I answered OP question and clarified YOUR incorrect statement.

The son is a MINOR, their parents are responsible for the minor child's actions. OP failed to obtain insurance to meet that financial obligation. The section of DMV addresses only the minimum financial responsibility to obtain a learner's permit not a limitation of their potential civil liability that is why there may very well be a civil lawsuit no matter the monetary damages to the new vehicle unless OP pays in full and obtains some sort of waiver due to full payment and even so, it may only mitigate somewhat the consequences. Even a minor repair might easily cost more than $5,000 including rental car etc.

 

[Zigner]

The son is a MINOR, their parents are responsible for the minor child's actions.

Not in this instance...what did the parents do wrong that would incur liability (responsibility) for their child's action? They didn't give him the keys, they didn't allow him access to the vehicle. The child was acting on his own and that doesn't automatically incur a liability on the part of the parents.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

Not in this instance...what did the parents do wrong that would incur liability (responsibility) for their child's action? They didn't give him the keys, they didn't allow him access to the vehicle. The child was acting on his own and that doesn't automatically incur a liability on the part of the parents.

If you don't know the law or theory, please start your own thread and don't disrupt this one.
Answer your own questions.

 

[Zigner]

If you don't know the law or theory, please start your own thread and don't disrupt this one.
Answer your own questions.

The parent's are only liable up to $5,000 for the property damage. You have nothing else to prove anything to the contrary except a link to a summary of liability amounts required.
The parents were not negligent. They are required to maintain financial responsibility of $5,000 minimum. Beyond that, the negligent person (the child) would be responsible. Things would be different if the parents were somehow negligent in their supervision of the child, but that is simply not the case (based on the information given)


EDIT:
I'm done on this one - have at it

 

[rmet4nzkx]

The parent's are only liable up to $5,000 for the property damage. You have nothing else to prove anything to the contrary except a link to a summary of liability amounts required.
The parents were not negligent. They are required to maintain financial responsibility of $5,000 minimum. Beyond that, the negligent person (the child) would be responsible. Things would be different if the parents were somehow negligent in their supervision of the child, but that is simply not the case (based on the information given)


EDIT:
I'm done on this one - have at it

You have still failed to cite your authority.
Excerpts from California Penal Code 502

< >
For the purposes of actions authorized by this subdivision,
the conduct of an unemancipated minor shall be imputed to the parent
or legal guardian having control or custody of the minor, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 1714.1 of the Civil Code.

 

[Zigner]

You have still failed to cite your authority.
Excerpts from California Penal Code 502

< >
For the purposes of actions authorized by this subdivision,
the conduct of an unemancipated minor shall be imputed to the parent
or legal guardian having control or custody of the minor, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 1714.1 of the Civil Code.

HHAHHAHHAHAHA

Please please tell me how computer hacking is related to this?

Here is the full text of the snippet you pulled:

(e) (1) In addition to any other civil remedy available, the owner
or lessee of the computer, computer system, computer network,
computer program, or data who suffers damage or loss by reason of a
violation of any of the provisions of subdivision (c) may bring a
civil action against the violator for compensatory damages and
injunctive relief or other equitable relief. Compensatory damages
shall include any expenditure reasonably and necessarily incurred by
the owner or lessee to verify that a computer system, computer
network, computer program, or data was or was not altered, damaged,
or deleted by the access. For the purposes of actions authorized by
this subdivision, the conduct of an unemancipated minor shall be
imputed to the parent or legal guardian having control or custody of
the minor, pursuant to the provisions of Section 1714.1 of the Civil
Code.

 

[Zigner]

However, with that said, I will say that section 1714.1 of the Civil Code seems to differ with my interpretation as presented before, so I will stand corrected and state that, in this case, it appears that the minor's parents may, in fact, be totally liable. My apologies for the misinformation/confusion.

 

[rmet4nzkx]

However, with that said, I will say that section 1714.1 of the Civil Code seems to differ with my interpretation as presented before, so I will stand corrected and state that, in this case, it appears that the minor's parents may, in fact, be totally liable. My apologies for the misinformation/confusion.

Thank you and your apology is accepted. I just gave you one example. In the future check for a cite if you don't know the law. More often than not, there is more than one statute or interpretation linked to any issue raised here, then add in minors and there are a whole different set of rules.

 

[mymeepey]

***Update***

I contacted the father of my son's friend to discuss this incident. He advised me that the car my son was driving was owned and insured by his mother in-law (this is the friend's grandma) I told him that I was willing pay for the repair of the damaged vehicle out of pocket to avoid a claim being filed against the grandma's insurance policy. (please note, there was no damage to the car my son was driving, only the car he hit). The father agreed and said he would notify his mother in-law(she is spanish speaking only) and her insurance company.

I received a letter from the insurance company of the damaged car. I tried to contact them by phone on three occasions but was unsuccessful. I was in the process of writing a letter to them when the "friend's grandma" shows up on my doorstep with a letter in hand from her insurance company stating that they have settled the claim for $550.93 to repair the damaged vehicle. Now the grandma wants me to pay her $550.93.

Again, I want to do the right thing. My son was at fault and I assume full responsibility for him. However I am confused because I intended to pay money to the person who incurred the actual damages, i.e the owner of the damaged car. The grandma didn't pay $550.93 out of her own pocket although she did pay for the insurance premium and the claim will go against her policy. But what if I pay her the money only to have the owner of the damaged car contact me later and want more money? I'm really in a pickle. Please advise.