[{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BlogPosting","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/family-purpose-doctrine-and-negligent-entrustment-1\/#BlogPosting","mainEntityOfPage":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/family-purpose-doctrine-and-negligent-entrustment-1\/","headline":"Motor Vehicle Collisions and Vicarious Liability: The Family Purpose Doctrine and Negligent Entrustment (Part 1)","name":"Motor Vehicle Collisions and Vicarious Liability: The Family Purpose Doctrine and Negligent Entrustment (Part 1)","description":"Often after a motor vehicle collision, it\u2019s obvious who the responsible parties are\u2014the at-fault driver, possibly the vehicle manufacturer, and possibly the premises owner. One less obvious and regularly overlooked party, is the owner of the vehicle being driven by the at-fault driver. Georgia law provides two ways of holding a vehicle owner responsible for… Continue reading Motor Vehicle Collisions and Vicarious Liability: The Family Purpose Doctrine and Negligent Entrustment (Part 1)<\/span><\/a>","datePublished":"2014-10-22","dateModified":"2026-04-17","author":{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/#Person","name":"Jeb Butler","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/author\/butler\/","identifier":9,"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f5a02bc71d91db5fc8645f129c4424ce6ef7af7e24fe54f4a85315a9dd28f317?s=96&d=mm&r=g","height":96,"width":96}},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Butler Kahn","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/Butler-Law-Firm-Logo.png","width":210,"height":93}},"image":{"@type":"ImageObject","@id":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/car-crash.jpg","url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/car-crash.jpg","height":1067,"width":1600},"url":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/family-purpose-doctrine-and-negligent-entrustment-1\/","about":["Car Accident","Liability","Personal Injury"],"wordCount":529,"articleBody":"Often after a motor vehicle collision, it\u2019s obvious who the responsible parties are\u2014the at-fault driver, possibly the vehicle manufacturer, and possibly the premises owner. One less obvious and regularly overlooked party, is the owner of the vehicle being driven by the at-fault driver.Georgia law provides two ways of holding a vehicle owner responsible for a collision that occurred while someone else was using their vehicle. These are the Family Purpose Doctrine and the Negligent Entrustment Theory. Part one of this two part blog will explain the requirements for holding a vehicle owner responsible under the Family Purpose Doctrine. Part two will discuss what is needed to do the same under the Negligent Entrustment Theory.What is the Family Purpose Doctrine?In Georgia, the Family Purpose Doctrine is used to hold a vehicle owner vicariously liable for injuries caused by another person\u2019s negligent driving. Because vicarious liability is being imposed on the vehicle owner, the negligent driver must be a party to the case, and must have caused the plaintiff\u2019s injuries.\u00a0O\u2019Hara v. Gilmore, 310 Ga. App. 620 (2011).Once the case is properly structured, a two-step process is required to impose liability under the Family Purpose Doctrine. The first step explains when the doctrine applies, and the second step determines if the doctrine applies. Under the first step, four preconditions must be met. These are:The vehicle owner must own or have an interest in or control over the automobile;The vehicle owner must have made the automobile available for family use;The driver of the vehicle must be a member of the vehicle owner\u2019s immediate household;The vehicle must have been driven with the permission or acquiescence of the vehicle owner.\u00a0Hicks v. Newman, 283 Ga. App. 352 (2007).If all four preconditions are met, the second step then requires a determination that the vehicle owner \u201chad the right to exercise such authority and control that it may be concluded that an agency relationship existed between the vehicle owner and the family member with respect to the use of the vehicle.\u201d\u00a0Dashtpeyma v. Wade, 285 Ga. App. 361 (2007).Family Purpose Doctrine in ApplicationLike many areas of the law, the Family Purpose Doctrine is not as straightforward as it appears. There are several factors that can affect whether the doctrine applies.First, merely owning the vehicle is \u201cinsufficient to establish the owner\u2019s liability for the negligence of another driver.\u201d\u00a0Hicks, 283 Ga. App. 352 (2007). There must be evidence that the owner had the right to control the vehicle\u2019s use.Second, the vehicle does not need to be in the process of being used for a family purpose at the time of the incident. All that is required is that the owner provide the vehicle for the \u201cpleasure, comfort, and convenience\u201d of the driver \u201cwithout any expectation of reimbursement.\u201d\u00a0Danforth v. Bulman, 276 Ga. App. 531 (2005).The attorneys at\u00a0Butler Kahn\u00a0understand the Family Purpose Doctrine, and have represented hundreds of people injured in motor vehicle collisions.It is your right to seek justice from everyone responsible for your injuries. If you have been injured in a motor vehicle accident, contact\u00a0our attorneys\u00a0for a free consultation. Or, call us at (404) JUSTICE."},{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org\/","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Blog","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/#breadcrumbitem"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Motor Vehicle Collisions and Vicarious Liability: The Family Purpose Doctrine and Negligent Entrustment (Part 1)","item":"https:\/\/butlerfirm.com\/blog\/family-purpose-doctrine-and-negligent-entrustment-1\/#breadcrumbitem"}]}]