Starr v. Hill
353 S.W.3d 478
Tenn.2011Background
- Plaintiff Arlene R. Starr sued Paul B. Hill, Sr. and his sixteen-year-old son after a Christmas Eve 2002 crash involving a car Hill owned and provided to his son.
- Plaintiff claimed Hill was vicariously liable under the Tennessee family purpose doctrine for the son's negligent driving.
- At the time of the accident, the son did not live with Hill due to divorce; Hill had purchased the car for the son when he turned sixteen and insured it.
- The trial court granted Hill summary judgment; the Court of Appeals reversed and held the doctrine applicable as a matter of law.
- The Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether Hill was a head of the household, (2) whether the car was maintained for family pleasure, and (3) whether Hill had control over its use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is Hill a head of the household for family purpose purposes when he does not reside with son? | Starr: yes, based on family relationship and duty to support. | Hill: no, nonresidency and lack of day-to-day control negate head status. | Hill is head of household as a matter of law. |
| Was the vehicle maintained for the pleasure or comfort of the family to trigger the doctrine? | Starr: yes, it benefited the family and was furnished for family use. | Hill: no, maintained only for son's sole use. | Yes, maintained for family pleasure or comfort. |
| Did Hill have express or implied permission/control over the vehicle at the time of the accident? | Starr: Hill must have control or permission over vehicle use. | Hill: control was lacking due to nonresidency and delegation to mother for day-to-day decisions. | Material issue of fact exists as to Hill's control; remand for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. Smythe, 204 S.W.2d 296 (Tenn. 1918) (origin of the family purpose doctrine; head of household must furnish for family)
- Camper v. Minor, 915 S.W.2d 437 (Tenn. 1996) (family purpose doctrine requires owner to furnish/maintain vehicle for family; consent to use)
- Gray v. Mitsky, 280 S.W.3d 828 (Tenn.Ct.App.2008) (driver may operate vehicle for family purpose even if using for personal pleasure)
- Redding v. Barker, 230 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn.Ct.App.1950) (early framing of family purpose elements and consent)
- Adkins v. Nanney, 82 S.W.2d 867 (Tenn.1935) (necessity of parental duty and control for applicability)
- Thurmon v. Sellers, 62 S.W.3d 145 (Tenn.Ct.App.2001) (agency-based rationale for family purpose liability; control focus)