Garrison v. Aquino
2017 Ark. App. 338
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In Aug. 2013, minor driver Austin Aquino (16) collided with Sue Garrison; Austin was driving a vehicle owned by his maternal grandmother and lived with his mother, Carrie Wade.
- Sue sued Austin and his parents, Al Aquino (father, noncustodial, lives in Texas) and Carrie (mother, primary legal and physical custody), alleging negligence and seeking to impute Austin’s negligence to the parents under Ark. Code Ann. § 27-16-702.
- Al did not sign Austin’s driver-license application and asserts he had no authority to sign or to permit Austin to drive while Austin was in Carrie’s custody.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment for Al, holding § 27-16-702 does not impute Austin’s negligence to a noncustodial parent who neither signed the application nor had authority to permit the driving.
- Sue appealed, arguing the statute should cover both parents and that Al’s due-process parental-rights were implicated by the court’s interpretation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether negligence of a minor driver is imputable to Al under § 27-16-702(b)/(c) | Garrison: statute should cover both parents; Al permitted Austin to drive, so liability should be imputed | Al: he did not sign the application, was not authorized under §27-16-702(a), and lacked authority to permit driving while Austin was in mother’s custody | Court: §27-16-702(c) applies only to persons required/authorized under (a); Al, as noncustodial parent, was not authorized and liability not imputed |
| Whether a noncustodial parent’s mere knowledge amounts to "permit" under §27-16-702(c) | Garrison: Al’s awareness that Austin drove suffices as permission | Al: any permission while child in other parent’s custody is legally ineffective; decree gave mother unilateral parenting authority while child in her care | Court: knowledge of driving is not permission; Al lacked legal/practical authority to permit driving while child in mother’s custody |
| Whether the statutory interpretation infringes Al’s constitutional parental rights (due process) | Garrison: interpretation limits Al’s fundamental right to parent (Troxel) | Al: no such claim raised below; custody decree—not the statute—limits his authority; Garrison lacks standing to assert Al’s rights | Court: issue not preserved for appeal; Garrison lacks standing to assert another’s due-process claim; claim fails on merits because custody decree, not statute, limits authority |
Key Cases Cited
- Ark. State Police v. Wren, 491 S.W.3d 124 (Ark. 2016) (standard of review for statutory construction is de novo)
- Pulaski Cty. v. Ark. Democrat-Gazette, Inc., 260 S.W.3d 718 (Ark. 2007) (principles of statutory interpretation)
- Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (parents have fundamental liberty interest in childrearing)
- Laymon v. State, 478 S.W.3d 203 (Ark. 2015) (issues not raised below are not considered on appeal)
- Nicholson v. Upland Indus. Dev. Co., 422 S.W.3d 108 (Ark. 2012) (standing requires plaintiff be a member of the class regulated by the law)