Pa. Cons. Stat. » 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. (VEHICLES) / Chapter 15
Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1574 (2026)

  Permitting unauthorized person to drive.

✓ current as of May 2026
Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 1574.  Permitting unauthorized person to drive.

(a)  General rule.--No person shall authorize or permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be driven upon any highway by any person who is not authorized under this chapter or who is not licensed for the type or class of vehicle to be driven.

(b)  Penalty.--Any person violating the provisions of subsection (a) is guilty of a summary offense and shall be jointly and severally liable with the driver for any damages caused by the negligence of such driver in operating the vehicle.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1983–2023 · leading case: Commonwealth v. Hickey, 582 A.2d 734 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Commonwealth v. Hickey, 582 A.2d 734 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). · cites it 4× “DPW bases its claim upon 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574 which provides: (a) General Rule.”
Terwilliger v. Kitchen, 781 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “Whether the Lower Court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in finding that Maryann Kitchen’s violation of Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574(a) in allowing her son, Kenneth Eugene Kitchen, to operate her vehicle when she had reason to know that he did not have a valid…”
Commonwealth v. McAulay, 522 A.2d 652 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 3× “On January 8, 1985, appellant was charged with the summary offense of permitting on unauthorized person to drive, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574. He subsequently pled guilty to this offense before a district justice and paid a fine.”
Shomo v. Scribe, 686 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1996). · cites it 2× “75 Pa.C.S. § 1574. 3 . A default judgment, in the amount of unliquidated damages, in favor of Shomo was entered against Scribe on the negligence count brought against him individually.”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Saf. v. Stahl, 460 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “The department contends 'that Stahl is responsible for Kline’s conduct under 75 Pa. C. S. §1574(a) and §1575(a), which provides: No person shall authorize or permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be driven upon any highway by any person who is not…”
Commonwealth v. Weniger, 584 A.2d 394 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). “Over DOT’s objection, Weniger’s counsel argued to the court that Weniger should have been charged under the more narrowly tailored Section 1574 of the Code, 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574, which prohibits an owner of a vehicle from permitting any person not authorized or properly licensed to…”
Green v. Klein, 16 Pa. D. & C.5th 144 (2010). “” 75 Pa.C.S. §1574. Furthermore, section 1575 of the Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code provides as follows: “(a) General rule.”
T. Patterson v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). · cites it 4× “Licensee was issued citation number MM1777285 (citation) on October 2, 2014, pursuant to Section 1574 of the Code, 75 Pa. C.S. § 1574,2 for permitting an 1 75 Pa.”
Olsen v. Septa, 27 Pa. D. & C.5th 399 (2013). · cites it 6× “The arbitration panel found in favor of appellant and against appellee Olsen as to liability; however the arbitration panel did not award damages to appellant because she permitted an unauthorized driver to operate her vehicle in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 1574. Id. On May 25,…”
Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez (Pa. 2019). · cites it 2× “Indeed, Safe Auto contends that Appellants’ suggestion that a vehicle owner’s purchase of insurance automatically covers all permissive users of the vehicle, rather than flowing from Section 1786(f), actually conflicts with Section 1786(f), which places responsibility on the…”
D. Sharkey v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “Citing Section 1547(k) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1574(k), we explained that the purpose of the pre- arrest breath test is “to assist the officer in determining whether or not the person should be placed under arrest.”
Com. v. Weedon, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1574(a). However, this Court has held that “[i]n order to violate the statute, … it must be shown that the owner knew or had reason to know that the individual to whom he or she authorized to operate his or her vehicle did not have a valid driver’s license.”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1574(a) — 7 cases
Terwilliger v. Kitchen, 781 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). “Whether the Lower Court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in finding that Maryann Kitchen’s violation of Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574(a) in allowing her son, Kenneth Eugene Kitchen, to operate her vehicle when she had reason to know that he did not have a valid…”
Shomo v. Scribe, 686 A.2d 1292 (Pa. 1996). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1574. 3 . A default judgment, in the amount of unliquidated damages, in favor of Shomo was entered against Scribe on the negligence count brought against him individually.”
Commonwealth, Dep't of Transp., Bureau of Traffic Saf. v. Stahl, 460 A.2d 1223 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1983). “The department contends 'that Stahl is responsible for Kline’s conduct under 75 Pa. C. S. §1574(a) and §1575(a), which provides: No person shall authorize or permit a motor vehicle owned by him or under his control to be driven upon any highway by any person who is not…”
Com. v. Weedon, T. (Pa. Super. Ct. 2018). “75 Pa.C.S. § 1574(a). However, this Court has held that “[i]n order to violate the statute, … it must be shown that the owner knew or had reason to know that the individual to whom he or she authorized to operate his or her vehicle did not have a valid driver’s license.”
Safe Auto v. Oriental-Guillermo Apl of: Jimenez (Pa. 2019). “Indeed, Safe Auto contends that Appellants’ suggestion that a vehicle owner’s purchase of insurance automatically covers all permissive users of the vehicle, rather than flowing from Section 1786(f), actually conflicts with Section 1786(f), which places responsibility on the…”
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1574(b) — 4 cases
Commonwealth v. Hickey, 582 A.2d 734 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1990). “DPW bases its claim upon 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574 which provides: (a) General Rule.”
Terwilliger v. Kitchen, 781 A.2d 1201 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2001). “Whether the Lower Court erred as a matter of law and/or abused its discretion in finding that Maryann Kitchen’s violation of Title 75 Pa.C.S. § 1574(a) in allowing her son, Kenneth Eugene Kitchen, to operate her vehicle when she had reason to know that he did not have a valid…”
Olsen v. Septa, 27 Pa. D. & C.5th 399 (2013). “The arbitration panel found in favor of appellant and against appellee Olsen as to liability; however the arbitration panel did not award damages to appellant because she permitted an unauthorized driver to operate her vehicle in violation of 75 Pa. C.S. § 1574. Id. On May 25,…”
R.M. Malik v. Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).
— 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1574(k) — 1 case
D. Sharkey v. PennDOT, Bureau of Driver Licensing (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2016). “Citing Section 1547(k) of the Vehicle Code, 75 Pa. C.S. §1574(k), we explained that the purpose of the pre- arrest breath test is “to assist the officer in determining whether or not the person should be placed under arrest.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.