Heidi Morgan v. Michel Hebert, 75021-6

Michael Hebert, an adult with a suspended license, took his parents’ 1994 Infiniti without permission while they were away.
William and Maria Hebert suspected Michael, called and texted him repeatedly, and demanded he return the vehicle immediately; they threatened police involvement and searched for the car.
While driving the car back to his parents’ home on May 26, 2014, Michael negligently collided with Heidi Morgan’s vehicle.
Morgan sued Michael and his parents for negligence; the trial court granted summary judgment dismissing the parents, and an arbitrator later awarded Morgan damages against Michael alone.
Morgan appealed the dismissal of the parents, arguing Michael was their agent when returning the car and thus they were vicariously liable; the parents contended they never consented to agency and had no control over Michael.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a principal-agent relationship existed making parents vicariously liable for Michael’s negligence	Parents’ demand that Michael return the car created permissive possession and an agency relationship when he complied	Parents never consented to Michael’s possession or conduct; he took the car unlawfully and acted independently, so they had no right of control	No agency as a matter of law; summary judgment for parents affirmed

Baxter v. Morningside, Inc., 10 Wn. App. 893 (1974) (agency found where mutual agreement controlled time, destination, purpose, and means)
O'Brien v. Hafer, 122 Wn. App. 279 (2004) (right of control and mutual agreement on trip details can create question of fact on agency)
Kim v. Budget Rent A Car Sys., Inc., 143 Wn.2d 190 (2001) (owner not liable for torts of one who wrongfully takes an unsecured vehicle)
McLean v. St. Regis Paper Co., 6 Wn. App. 727 (1972) (vicarious liability depends on principal's control or right to control agent)
Owen v. Burlington N. & Santa Fe R.R., 153 Wn.2d 780 (2005) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)