Peters v. LeDoux

• Decision Date: 06 December 1971
• Docket Number: No. 9278,9278
• Citation: 491 P.2d 524,83 N.M. 307,1971 NMSC 117
• Parties: Debbie PETERS, a Minor and Helen Peters, Her Mother, Petitioners, v. Gregory Ronald LeDOUX, a Minor by Mary Gallegos, as Guardian and Next Friend, Respondents.
• Court: New Mexico Supreme Court

Page 524

491 P.2d 524

83 N.M. 307

Debbie PETERS, a Minor and Helen Peters, Her Mother, Petitioners, v. Gregory Ronald LeDOUX, a Minor by Mary Gallegos, as Guardian and Next Friend, Respondents.

No. 9278.

Supreme Court of New Mexico.

Dec. 6, 1971.

Leon Karelitz, Las Vegas, for petitioners.

Duran, Pearlman & Short, Albuquerque, for respondents.

OPINION

OMAN, Justice.

The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of the trial court in favor of plaintiffs against both defendants. LeDoux v. Peters, 82 N.M. 661, 486 P.2d 70 (1971). The case is now before us on certiorari. We affirm the results reached by both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, but disagree with some of the appraisals and conclusions of the Court of Appeals as to the New Mexico law on the family purpose doctrine.

We consider only the second issue raised by defendant, Helen Peters, hereinafter referred to as defendant, under her first point relied upon for reversal, and the disposition thereof by the Court of Appeals. Her contention is that: 'The burden is on the party asserting the applicability of the family purpose doctrine to prove that a motor vehicle is maintained by the owner for the general use and convenience of his family.' The Court of Appeals held this contention was '* * * not in line with New Mexico decisions.'

The facts bearing upon this issue are set forth in the opinion by the Court of Appeals.

We are unable to say these facts failed to substantially support the claim that defendant maintained the vehicle for the general use and convenience of her family. Thus, we agree with the trial court's conclusion that plaintiff should recover from defendant under the family purpose doctrine.

The opinion of the Court of Appeals, that defendant's contention is inconsistent with New Mexico decisions, is first predicated upon the assertion that the decisions in Pouliot v. Box, 56 N.M. 556, 246 P.2d 1050 (1952) and Stevens v. Van Deusen, 56 N.M. 128, 241 P.2d 331 (1951), '* * * held heads of families liable under the doctrine when they did not own the automobile in question, and when the vehicle was not maintained for the general use and convenience of the family. * * *'

The ownership of the vehicle in the case now before us is not in question, as shown by the facts recited in the Court of Appeals opinion. Consequently, even if the Pouliot and Stevens cases had held the heads of families liable under the family purpose doctrine, although they did not own the vehicles in question, this holding still would have no significance in the present case. In the present case defendant unquestionably owned the vehicle driven by her daughter. However, this court in neither the Pouliot nor the Stevens case said the automobile in question was not owned by the parent, nor did it say the automobile was owned by the minor child. In both cases it is clearly suggested that under New Mexico statutes the parent may in fact have been the owner. In neither case was the question of ownership decided, and the decision in neither turned upon this question. Both cases involved the reversal of summary judgments, and both, insofar as pertinent to the question now before us is concerned, stated that the status of the minor, whether emancipated, is a question of fact and cannot be decided as a matter of law.

Insofar as the question of ownership is concerned, this court in Boes v. Howell, 24 N.M. 142, 148, 173 P. 966 (1918), in announcing it agreed with the view expressed by the Washington court in the case of Birch v. Abercrombie, 74 Wash. 486, 133 P. 1020 (1913), quoted the following from the opinion in the Washington case:

"* * * It seems too plain for cavil that a father, who furnishes a vehicle for the customary conveyance of the members of his family makes their conveyance by that vehicle his affair--that is, his business--and any one driving the vehicle for that purpose with his consent, express or implied, whether a member of his family or another is his agent. * * *"

Elsewhere in the opinion of this court in the Boes case reference is made to "* * * one who keeps an automobile for the pleasure and convenience of himself and his family * * *" to "(t)he owner of an automobile who maintains it for the general use of his family * *" and to "* * * he (who) purchased and kept the automobile for the use of his family."

In the Pouliot and Stevens cases the court quoted the following with approval from Robinson v. Ebert, 180 Wash. 387, 39 P.2d 992, 995 (1935):

"Whether a parent gives to an unemancipated minor child an automobile with permission to use the same, or whether he gives the child the money with which to buy an automobile, or whether he permits the child to purchase a car with money given the minor by some one else or earned by him, would, under circumstances similar to those here shown, appear to make little difference as to the question of whether or not the parents' responsibility constitutes a question of fact to be determined by the jury. * * *"

These expressions would seem to indicate that ownership, in the sense of being the holder of title to the automobile, is not essential to liability under the family purpose doctrine. Accord, Lopez v. Barreras, 77 N.M. 52, 419 P.2d 251 (1966). However, as already stated, the question of ownership is not in dispute in this case.

The Court of Appeals next states the Pouliot and Stevens cases held liability could be imposed under the family purpose doctrine '* * * when the vehicle was not maintained for the general use and convenience of the family * * *.' We fail to find anything in the opinion in either of these cases which could properly be so construed. In each case a minor child had purchased and apparently was paying the upkeep on the vehicle involved. However, in view of the nature of the cases and the stated issue upon which the summary judgments were reversed, we are unable to equate any language by this court in either opinion with the statement that under the family purpose doctrine, as developed in New Mexico, liability is not dependent upon the maintenance of the vehicle for the general use and convenience of the family.

This court in Boes v. Howell, supra, expressed this element of the family purpose doctrine in the following language:

"* * * who furnishes a vehicle for the customary conveyance of the members of his...