Hately v. Hamilton

• Decision Date: 17 July 1970
• Docket Number: No. 460,460
• Citation: 1970 NMCA 92,81 N.M. 774,473 P.2d 913
• Parties: Jeffrey Dean HATELY, a Minor, by his Father and Next Friend, Eugene R. Hately; and Eugene R. Hately, Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James HAMILTON and Helen Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 913

473 P.2d 913

81 N.M. 774

Jeffrey Dean HATELY, a Minor, by his Father and Next Friend Eugene R. Hately; and Eugene R. Hately Individually, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James HAMILTON and Helen Hamilton, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 460.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

July 17, 1970.

Certiorari Denied Aug. 20, 1970.

William G. Gilstrap, Richard E. Ransom, Smith, Ransom & Deaton, Albuquerque, for appellants.

Robert G. McCorkle, Rodey, Dickason, Sloan, Akin & Robb, James T. Paulantis, Iden & Johnson, Albuquerque, for appellees.

OPINION

SPIESS, Chief Judge.

The plaintiff, Eugene R. Hately, individually and as next friend of Jeffrey Dean Hately (Jeffrey) a minor, has appealed from a summary judgment in favor of defendants, James Hamilton and Helen Hamilton, parents of Charles Hamilton (Charles), a minor. We affirm the judgment. The complaint sought damages on account of personal injuries sustained by Jeffrey which resulted from a motorcycle accident. At the time of the occurrence Jeffrey was a guest rider upon the motorcycle which was owned and operated by Charles.

It appears to be conceded by the plaintiff that § 64--24--1, N.M.S.A.1953 (the guest statute) is a bar to any action against Charles. He is charged only with ordinary negligence. The action, consequently, was brought solely against James and Helen Hamilton, Charles' parents. The grounds upon which plaintiff would impose liability upon defendants are hereinafter discussed.

The basic issues before us involve (1) the determination of questions of law upon undisputed facts, and (2) whether upon the record before the court a triable issue was presented.

The accident occurred at the intersection of U.S. Highway 66 and State Road 53 in the area of Grants, New Mexico. The motorcycle operated by Charles and upon which Jeffrey was riding was traveling in an easterly direction upon the inside lane of the two eastbound lanes of Highway 66 and proceeding toward the intersection of the highways. An automobile driven by one Russell had entered the intersection before this point was reached by the motorcycle. Russell crossed both eastbound lanes of Highway 66 and had proceeded into the median strip which divided the opposing traffic lanes of Highway 66 and there came to a stop preparatory to turning west on Highway 66. Russell was delayed because of westbound traffic. The rear portion of his car as it was stopped extended two feet into the east lane of Highway 66, the lane upon which the motorcycle was traveling.

As the motorcycle approached the intersection and the Russell car its brakes were applied and the motorcycle began to slide or skid; it then fell with the boys and slid along the highway in front of them leaving some 137 feet of skid marks. Jeffrey struck the rear of the Russell car and as a result sustained the injuries upon which the complaint is based.

It is conceded that at the time of the accident Charles was fifteen years of age and his mother, the defendant, Helen Hamilton, in accordance with § 64--13--44, N.M.S.A.1953, had signed an operator's license thereby assuming the obligations imposed by the Act.

It is further conceded that the motorcycle was purchased by defendant, James Hamilton and given to Charles and he was permitted by his parents to operate it.

It is undisputed that the motorcycle was rated as a six horsepower vehicle and its use by Charles was violative of the provisions of § 64--13--40, N.M.S.A.1953.

The plaintiff asserts the following three points support reversal of the summary judgment. (1) In accordance with § 64--13--44, N.M.S.A.1953, negligence on the part of Charles is imputed to his parent or parents who signed his application for driver's license. (2) Liability is imposed on the parents under the family purpose doctrine. (3) A fact issue was present as to whether the negligence of the defendants (parents) in giving a six horsepower motorcycle to Charles and permitting him to operate it in violation of the provisions of his license (§ 64--13--40, supra) was a proximate cause of Jeffrey's injuries, precluding the granting of summary judgment.

The parties appear to be in disagreement on whether a factual issue is disclosed by the record as to negligence on the part of Charles, and, if an issue as to such negligence is disclosed, whether there is evidence that this negligence was a proximate cause of the accident. For the purpose of our review we assume that the record does disclose an issue of fact relating to ordinary negligence on the part of Charles and likewise a fact issue as to a causal connection between Charles' negligence and Jeffrey's injuries.

It is undisputed that defendant, Helen Hamilton, Charles' mother, signed his application for license to the end that § 64--13--44, supra, is applicable. This Act reads, in part:

'(b) Any negligence or willful misconduct of a minor under the age of eighteen (18) years when driving a motor vehicle upon a highway shall be imputed to the person who has signed the application of such minor for a permit or license, which person shall be jointly and severally liable with such minor for any damages caused by such negligence or willful misconduct except as otherwise provided in the next succeeding paragraph.'

'(c) In the event a minor deposits or there is deposited upon his behalf proof of financial responsibility in respect to the operation of a motor vehicle owned by him, or if not the owner of a motor vehicle, then with respect to the operation of any motor vehicle, in form and in amounts as required under the motor vehicle financial responsibility laws of this state; then the division may accept the application of such minor when signed by one (1) parent or the guardian of such minor, and while such proof is maintained such parent or guardian shall not be subject to the liability imposed under the preceding paragraph of this section.'

Plaintiff argues that this statute imposes responsibility for a minor's negligence upon the person signing the application for license and the fact that the minor is absolved from liability under the Guest Act (§ 64--24--1, N.M.S.A.1953) does not relieve the signers of financial responsibility for damages. With this contention we do not agree.

The Act, § 64--13--44, supra, was, in our opinion, designed as a means of providing financial responsibility for the minor. Consequently, liability on the part of the minor would be requisite to the imposition of a liability upon the signers. Paragraph (c) of the Act would lend support to this conclusion in that the minor's deposits, if made under (c), clearly could not be subjected to a claim in the absence of liability on the part of the minor.

Identical to our case and coming to the same conclusion is McHugh v. Brown, 50 Del. 154, 11 Terry 154, 125 A.2d 583 (1956). In this case it was held that the Delaware Guest Act barred the action against the minor operator, and as a consequence an action or claim against the persons signing the minor's license application was also barred. The statute making the signers of the minor's application liable for his negligence and which was considered in McHugh is identical to our Act (§...