WHO IS RESPONSIBLE?

[SHAWNEE2]

RECENTLY MY HUSBAND LOANED MY CAR TO MY NEIGHBOR TO GO TO SCHOOL. SHORTLY AFTER GETTING THE CAR MY NEIGHBOR WRECKED IT AND FLIPPED IT. THE ACCIDENT HAPPENED ON MY STREET. HE HIT A PARKED CAR ON THE CURB AND FLIPPED MY CAR IN THE PROCESS. I APPROACHED HIS PARENTS ABOUT GETTING THE REPAIRS TAKEN CARE OF AND THEY ARE REFUSING TO PAY. THEY SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY LEGALLY IN THE MATTER. I THOUGHT THAT THEY BORE SOME RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEIR SON MY NEIGHBOR IS ONLY 17 YEARS OLD AND STILL A MINOR. AFTER THE ACCIDENT THEY THEN DECIDED TO TELL ME THAT HE ALSO IN UNLICENSED TO DRIVE. I WOULD FILE THE ACCIDENT ON MY INSURANCE ONLY MY DEDUCTIBLE IS HIGHER THAT THE AMOUNT OF THE DAMAGE. I EVEN TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD SETTLE FOR HALF BUT THEY ARE NOT HELPING IN ANY WAY. ARE THEY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF THEIR SON OR NOT. PLEASE HELP ME. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY TO HAVE MY CAR REPAIRED AND I DON'T SEE WHY IT HAS TO BE ME. I LIVE IN TEXAS AGAIN PLEASE HELP.

 

[ALawyer]

I'm not from Texas, but in my state the kid is liable, not his parents. They did nothing wrong, your husband did.

If your husband was stupid enough to lend his car to an unlicensed 17 year old, be thankful that the 17 year old did not injure someone -- as you and your husband likely would be liable to the injured person for having put a dangerous intrumentality in the hands of an unlicensed driver.

------------------
This is intended as general information only and NOT LEGAL ADVICE. You are not my client, and I have no obligation of any kind to you. To retain a lawyer, go to http://AttorneyPages.com

 

[SHAWNEE2]

My husband and I were unaware that the minor boy had no license. I still fail to see how parents can avoid being held for the actions of their children. So using the word stupid is taken as an insult maybe you should be a little more tactful in the usuage of your words. How about using the word ignorant. That means that we were unaware of all the pertinant information. If my child goes out and robs a store would I not as a parent be required to pay restitution? Explain how this situation differs and enlighten me please.

[This message has been edited by SHAWNEE2 (edited August 25, 2000).]

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face=" Arial, Verdana, Helvetica">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SHAWNEE2:
My husband and I were unaware that the minor boy had no license. I still fail to see how parents can avoid being held for the actions of their children. So using the word stupid is taken as an insult maybe you should be a little more tactful in the usuage of your words. How about using the word ignorant. That means that we were unaware of all the pertinant information. If my child goes out and robs a store would I not as a parent be required to pay restitution? Explain how this situation differs and enlighten me please.

[This message has been edited by SHAWNEE2 (edited August 25, 2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My response:

No, ALawyer was correct the first time in his asessment of your husband, and it is evident by the fact that you are now mixing apples and oranges (Crime versus Negligence).

Your analogy does not wash because if your child robbed a store, you'd be responsible because your child would be committing a "purposeful and malicious act" - i.e., a crime.

In this case, there was only negligence, and a parent is not responsible for the "negligence" of their minor . . . the minor is the only one responsible.

In the original scenario, the kid and your husband would be jointly responsible. Why?

1. The kid has liability due to his negligence for causing damage to your car, and accepting the keys to your car when he knew he was unlicensed.

2. Your husband is likewise liable because he can't stick his head in the sand a claim "I didn't know" Duh!! He had an obligation, nay, a DUTY under the law to know and make sure that whomever he loaned his car to had a valid driver's license.

Since he didn't check, by asking, he went ahead and placed a dangerous instrumentality into the hands of someone who had no right or training to drive (under State guidelines and laws, that is - - I don't care if the kid already had been driving another car).

So, when Alawyer says what your husband did was "stupid," he pinned it down just right. Not knowing is ignorance, failing to ask is, in fact, stupid.

The kid and your husband owe 1/2 each on your husband's car, and 1/2 each on the other person's property damage.

Sorry to be so hard on you, but when Alawyer says something around here, you can "take it to the bank" that he's correct.

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 August 25, 2000).]

 

[SHAWNEE2]

NOW THAT I KNOW WHO IS LIABLE BEING MY HUSBAND BEARS HALF OF THE RESPONSIBILITY AND MY MINOR NEIGHBOR BEARS THE OTHER HALF. ANY SUGGESTIONS ON COLLECTING FROM A MINOR. DO I HAVE JUST CAUSE IN INITIATING A SMALL CLAIMS COURT CASE? THE KID HAS NO JOB, NO VISIBLE MEANS OF SUPPORT OTHER THAN THAT RECEIVED FROM HIS PARENTS. HOW DO I COLLECT? IS IT PROPER TO SUE A MINOR AND WILL I LIKELY BE ABLE TO OBTAIN A JUDGEMENT? I REALLY JUST WANT TO MAKE THIS AS PAINLESS AS POSSIBLE SINCE THESE ARE MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS AND I WILL CONTINUE TO RESIDE NEXT DOOR TO THEM. WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?

[This message has been edited by SHAWNEE2 (edited August 26, 2000).]