State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Duran

• Decision Date: 28 August 1979
• Docket Number: No. 3678,3678
• Citation: 93 N.M. 489,1979 NMCA 107,601 P.2d 722
• Parties: STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Stanley Chavez, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. Joe L. DURAN, Defendant, and Frank Duran, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Court of Appeals of New Mexico

Page 722

601 P.2d 722

93 N.M. 489

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and Stanley

Chavez, Plaintiffs- Appellees, v. Joe L. DURAN, Defendant, and Frank Duran, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 3678.

Court of Appeals of New Mexico.

Aug. 28, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 11, 1979.

Paul J. Matteucci, Edward L. Matteucci, Albuquerque, for defendant-appellant

G. Richard Mantlo, Lamb, Metzgar & Lines, Albuquerque, for plaintiffs-appellees.

OPINION

WALTERS, Judge.

Plaintiff's insurance company and its insured sought subrogation recovery against Frank Duran, owner, and his brother Joe Duran, driver, for damages to Chavez's car and personal injuries sustained by the Chavezes in an automobile accident. Following a non-jury trial, judgment of $4,022.63 was entered against Frank Duran.

Appellant raises two points for reversal: (1) the trial court erred in concluding that appellant was negligent; and (2) the court erred in concluding that appellant was liable for the negligence of his brother based upon the Family Purpose Doctrine.

Application of the Family Purpose Doctrine upon the court's findings of negligence in this case presents matters of first impression and requires a summary of the facts.

Joe Duran, 56 or 57 years old, lived "off and on" with his brother Frank, 49, and was at his home "sometimes." Frank testified that Joe "stays with a friend over in Los Lunas, . . . and then (with another friend) . . . he's away; he comes and goes. I can't keep track of him." On the day of the accident, Frank and Joe left Frank's home where they had been drinking and went in Frank's car to a neighborhood bar. Both brothers became drunk. Frank spilled a can of beer at the bar and was asked to leave. Joe was playing pool at the time and wanted to finish his game, so Frank left the bar and fell asleep in the back seat of his car while he waited for Joe. When Joe came out, he removed the car keys from the sleeping man's pocket and while driving Frank's car, ran a red light and collided with the Chavez car.

Joe Duran's driver's license had been permanently suspended, and Frank Duran had never allowed his brother to drive his car. He did not give Joe permission to drive, or his keys, on the date of the accident.

The critical findings and conclusion upon which judgment was grounded are:

(Finding 10): That the proximate cause of the injury and damage sustained by the plaintiff and members of the plaintiff's family was the negligence of Joe L. Duran and Frank Duran.

(Finding 11): That in addition to his own negligence, Frank Duran is responsible for the negligence of Joe L. Duran as members and residents of the same household and is liable for all of the plaintiff's damages and the damages to the plaintiff's family.

(Conclusion 6): That Frank Duran is also liable for the negligence of Joe L. Duran, pursuant to the Family Purpose Doctrine.

Appellant attacks Finding 10 as unsupported by the evidence, and insofar as Frank Duran's causal negligence is concerned, we agree. The issue of the owner's negligence in circumstances of vehicular "theft" must be governed by the analogous law of Bouldin v. Sategna, 71 N.M. 329, 378 P.2d 370 (1963). There the owner, in violation of statute, left his car unattended without removing the keys. Our Supreme Court held that he could not have anticipated that the car would be stolen nor reasonably have foreseen that theft and a subsequent accident would be "a natural or probable result" of leaving the car unlocked with the keys in the ignition. If the susceptibility of the vehicle to theft and the intervening negligence of the thief in Bouldin could not be foreseen under the circumstances present there, they are certainly less foreseeable in this case where the owner retained the keys on his person and remained in the car.

The proximate cause of the injury and damage to plaintiffs was Joe Duran's unforeseeable intervening negligence. Bouldin, supra.

Holding that Frank Duran was not causally negligent, however, does not relieve him of liability if the Family Purpose Doctrine applies. "The maintenance of the vehicle ' * * * for the general use and convenience of (the) family * * *' Is essential to liability under the doctrine." (Our emphasis.) Peters v. LeDoux, 83 N.M. 307, 491 P.2d 524 (1971). Such evidence is totally lacking in the instant case. There is nothing at all in the record to suggest that the vehicle was for anyone's use and convenience other than Frank's.

The Family Purpose Doctrine is grounded on principal-agent, master-servant principles. Pavlos v. Albuquerque Natl. Bank, 82 N.M. 759, 487 P.2d 187 (Ct.App.1971); Burkhart v. Corn, 59 N.M. 343, 284 P.2d 226 (1955); Boes v. Howell, 24 N.M. 142, 173 P. 966 (1918). It is positioned in the Civil U.J.I. volume under "Chapter 4. Agency, Master and Servant." See U.J.I. 4.9.

The New Mexico master-servant cases resolve liability of the master upon the scope of the servant's authority. Where there was no authority, even though the opportunity for abuse was present by reason of the master's making the opportunity available, the master has been held not liable. Fernandez v. Lloyd McKee Motors, Inc., 90 N.M. 433, 564 P.2d 997 (Ct.App.1977); Morris v. Cartwright, 57 N.M. 328, 258 P.2d 719 (1953); Miller v. Hoefgen, 51 N.M. 319, 183 P.2d 850 (1947).

Prior to adoption of the Rules of Evidence for the courts of New Mexico in 1973, any Presumption of consensual agency in the driver when the owner was also present in the vehicle was rebutted when evidence to the contrary was presented. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co. v. Foundation Reserve Ins. Co., 78 N.M. 359, 431 P.2d 737 (Ct.App.1967). Frank Duran denied granting consent, and that testimony was uncontradicted.

Likewise, it was held that any presumption of consent to the driver and thus agency in the driver, by proof of ownership in the defendant, "ceases to exist immediately upon the introduction of credible and substantial evidence which would support a contrary finding." Payne v. Tuozzoli, 80 N.M. 214, 453 P.2d 384 (Ct.App.1969); Morris v. Cartwright, supra. Silva v. Traver, 63 Ariz. 364, 162 P.2d 615 (1945), was cited in Morris, supra, for the proposition that "(w) henever evidence contradicting a legal presumption is introduced the presumption vanishes." At 57 N.M. 332-333, 258 P.2d 722, Morris addressed the fragile effect of the presumption that the driver's agency attached to proof of the defendant's ownership, and noted:

It must be conceded that proof or admission of ownership creates a presumption that the driver of a vehicle causing damages is the servant of the owner and using the vehicle in the master's business, and this presumption is sufficient in the absence of evidence to the contrary to support a verdict. But it is only a presumption of law and not evidence. When contradictory evidence is introduced, the presumption disappears as though it had never existed.

The law of New Mexico was observed to be the same as that quoted, in Morris, at 57 N.M. 333-334, 258 P.2d 723, from Gallagher v. Holcomb, 172 Okl. 1, 44 P.2d 44, 49 (1935):

And where the defendant . . . establishes that the son, on the occasion of the injury, was not driving the parent's car with the consent or approval of the latter, or in his business or interest, and was not then acting as his servant or agent, And such evidence is uncontradicted by rebuttal evidence, and the witness is in no way impeached, the presumption of authority previously existing is overcome, the absence of authority on the particular occasion is established, and no question of fact as to agency at the time of the accident remains. (Our emphasis.)

The disappearance of the presumption upon the presentation of contrary evidence was eliminated, however, when the 1973 Rules of Evidence were adopted. Rule 301 now provides that, generally, "a presumption imposes on the party against whom it is directed the burden of proving that the nonexistence of the presumed fact is more probable than its existence." Thus the inference may continue to operate in an evidentiary sense even after introduction of evidence tending to establish the contrary, and may sufficiently influence the trier of facts to conclude that the presumed fact does exist.

The Commentary of the Advisory Committee which prepared and submitted the Rules to the Supreme Court instructs us, however, that "(p)resumptions governed by this rule are given the effect of placing upon the opposing party the burden of establishing the nonexistence of the presumed fact." Defendant met the burden with positive evidence that Joe Duran did not have and never had had his permission to use or drive his car. However, as the factfinder, the trial court could have disbelieved defendant. The findings and conclusions do not reflect, however, that the court doubted defendant's credibility they are expressive of its view of Frank Duran's foreseeable negligence in making it possible for Joe Duran to obtain his keys and drive his vehicle. We have already discussed the impropriety of that approach.

In Pesqueira v. Talbot, 7 Ariz.App. 476, 441 P.2d 73 (1968), a review of the Family Purpose Doctrine was undertaken and the analysis given it by numerous jurisdictions, as well as by Arizona, led to the following formulation of the elements that must be shown for its use:

(T)he substantial requisites for the application of this anomalous doctrine . . . may be stated thus: there must be a family with sufficient unity so that there is a head of the family, the motor vehicle responsible for the injury must have been one "furnished" by the head of the family to a member of the family and this vehicle must have been used ...with the implied or express consent of the head of the family for a family purpose.

Other courts have defined "family" to mean that one or more persons live together in the same household, are supported by the head of the family in whole or in part, are dependent upon him for that support, and that...