family purpose doctrine in North Dakota

1999Narum v. Faxx Foods, Inc. , 1999 ND 45, ¶ 18 , 590 N.W.2d 454 . [¶8] William Johnson’s liability was premised solely on the family purpose doctrine.

1999Narum v. Faxx Foods, Inc. , 1999 ND 45, ¶ 18 , 590 N.W.2d 454 . [¶8] William Johnson’s liability was premised solely on the family purpose doctrine.

1991This court previously considered this question in Michaelsohn, supra and in Brower v. Stolz, 121 N.W.2d 624 (N.D.1963), and held that the family purpose doctrine has no application to a case where the owner of the family vehicle seeks to recover for damages to his vehicle proximately caused by the negligence of the driver of another vehicle, even though the family member driver of the owner’s vehicle was contributorily negligent.

1968Brower v. Stolz, 121 N.W.2d 624 (N.D. 1963), Syllabus 3. *808 The record shows without dispute that he kept and maintained the automobile involved for the business and pleasure of his family.

1962Although the Supreme Court of Minnesota had adopted the family purpose doctrine, (Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , 144 N.W. 745 ) the Minnesota State Legislature enacted a safety responsibility act.

1962Although the Supreme Court of Minnesota had adopted the family purpose doctrine, (Ploetz v. Holt, 124 Minn. 169 , 144 N.W. 745 ) the Minnesota State Legislature enacted a safety responsibility act.

1962(L. 1933, c. 351) In construing this statute the Minnesota Court said: “It is clear that the purpose (of the statute in question) was to make the owner of motor vehicles liable to those injured by their operation upon public ■streets and highways where no such liability would otherwise exist.” Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc., 201 Minn. 44, 48 , 275 N.W. 416, 418 .

1962(L. 1933, c. 351) In construing this statute the Minnesota Court said: “It is clear that the purpose (of the statute in question) was to make the owner of motor vehicles liable to those injured by their operation upon public ■streets and highways where no such liability would otherwise exist.” Holmes v. Lilygren Motor Co. Inc., 201 Minn. 44, 48 , 275 N.W. 416, 418 .

1962Co., 215 Minn. 394 , 10 N.W.2d 406, 417 , 147 A.L.R. 945 , the court said: “The very reason for holding the consenting owner liable for negligence of the operator of his automobile, that of furnishing financial responsibility to an injured party, is completely absent in the owner’s action to recover for damages sustained by him as a result of the concurrent negligence of the operator and the third party.” The family purpose doctrine and the financial responsibility statutes, such as those of Iowa and Minnesota have their origin in an identical public policy, that of giving an injured party, wh

1962Co., 215 Minn. 394 , 10 N.W.2d 406, 417 , 147 A.L.R. 945 , the court said: “The very reason for holding the consenting owner liable for negligence of the operator of his automobile, that of furnishing financial responsibility to an injured party, is completely absent in the owner’s action to recover for damages sustained by him as a result of the concurrent negligence of the operator and the third party.” The family purpose doctrine and the financial responsibility statutes, such as those of Iowa and Minnesota have their origin in an identical public policy, that of giving an injured party, wh

1962In Bartek v. Glasers Provisions Co., 160 Neb. 794 , 71 N *574 W.2d 466, it was held that the family purpose doctrine had no application to a case, where a wife owner of a car, which was being driven by her husband, was injured as the proximate result of the negligence of a third party, even though the husband’s negligence may have contributed thereto.

1962After the Supreme Court of Iowa had rejected the family purpose rule, (Neubrand v. Kraft, 169 Iowa 444 , 151 N.W. 455 , L.R.A. 1915D, 691 ) the state legislature enacted Chapter 275, Acts of the 38th G.

1962After the Supreme Court of Iowa had rejected the family purpose rule, (Neubrand v. Kraft, 169 Iowa 444 , 151 N.W. 455 , L.R.A. 1915D, 691 ) the state legislature enacted Chapter 275, Acts of the 38th G.

1949In Creaghead v. Hafele’s Administrator, 236 Ky 250, 32 SW2d 997 , it appears that an adult daughter who was a college instructor in another city was spending her vacation at home, struck and killed a child while operating an- automobile maintained by her father for his own use and that of his family.

1949In Adkins v. Nanney, 169 Tenn 67, 82 SW2d 867 , it appears that an adult son was living with his father on a farm and assisting him with the farm work but was not subject to the father’s control or dependent on him, and it was held that although the father at times permitted his son to use his car for business or pleasure the father was not liable for the negligent operation of the automobile under the family purpose doctrine.