Will I be liable for my son’s car accident if the car is in his name, but he has no insurance? 22 Answers as of February 17, 2012

No. However, have you excluded him from your insurance? Is he aware that the consequences for driving a vehicle without insurance in MD are quite severe. Further, if he has valid MD tags, he will eventually be required to pay a hefty fine.

The general rule is that you are not responsible for child after they become an adult. Check with a lawyer to see what applies in your situation.

Although there are exceptions, you are generally not liable if you were not attached to the car in any way (you are not a co-owner and it was not registered in your name).

You should have no liability unless you are the listed owner of the car. Your son is not a minor and his residence with you will only become an issue if he was involved in a claim (non motor vehicle) that would invoke your home owners coverage.

The general rule, which is derived from the common law rule that an owner who permitted his vehicle to be used by another was not ordinarily liable for the negligence of the driver applied equally when the driver was a member of the owner's family. Thus, when the driver was insolvent, i.e. judgment proof or financially irresponsible, the family avoided responsibility unscathed for the injury to others arising out of the vehicle's negligent operation. As a result of these unjust results some states began to adopt statutes which allowed the owner liable for permissive use, and to stretch the principles of agency law to develop what we now know today as the family car or family purpose doctrine. Jurisdictions who have and now adopt the doctrine, holding that an on automobile owner is liable for the negligent use of the car by a member of his or her family when it can be revealed that the same automobile was purchased and or is maintained by the owner of the family for purposes of pleasure and convenience, and that it is at the time of the loss so being used, with the owners implied or express consent the liability imposed under the family purpose doctrine does not arise out of the familial relationship, but rather as a variant of the master servant relationship under the common law of agency. The Washington State Supreme Court set out the foundation for this concept very simply when they wrote that one who furnishes a vehicle for the customary use of members of his or her family, "makes the transportation of such persons by the vehicle his affair, that is, his business, and anyone driving the vehicle for that purpose with his consent, express or implied, whether a member of his family or another, is his agent." However, this agency justification for the doctrine has been, in a past, afflicted with the criticism as a legal fiction, and some courts have instead advanced policy arguments as their basis for the doctrine. However, if you find yourself in a jurisdiction in which the doctrine has been accepted, the plaintiff has the burden of establishing certain elements to demonstrate that this doctrine is applicable. Such elements include, and inquire if, the defendant actually owned, controlled or maintained the vehicle, as a family purpose vehicle, that the user was a member of the family entitled to that use, and that the actual use at the time of the collision was for a family purpose, under the general permission extended by the owner. What is significant about the aforementioned is the fact that the doctrine need not be applied if it can be demonstrated that the defendant is not a family member or in a familial relationship. Courts on the other hand have helped defined what a familial relationship or family relationship is by explaining that the operators and owners relationship is one of social status where there is also a legal or moral obligation of support, and there is a corresponding state of dependents for that support. Bear in mind that this doctrine has not been limited to vehicles owned by the head of the household solely. It has been applied to automobiles owned by mothers, sons, and daughters. Proof of registered ownership is not dispositive determinative of the applicability of the family car doctrine. Also note that it has been held in Washington State that the party sought to be held liable must have been an owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. In order to render the doctrine applicable, the plaintiff must show that at the time of the accident vehicle was being used for either the express or implied permission of the owner, and that there was no deviation from the permission granted. For example, if the permission was limited to using the vehicle only for going to and from a local convenience store and the collision occurred outside of that permission than permissive use will be in question. Provided your limited fact pattern, the answer is hard to provide. A full investigation, by savvy counsel should be conducted bearing in mind the aforementioned family car doctrine. Questions must be answered as to who owned the vehicle, who furnished or maintained the vehicle, was it provided for family use, pleasure or convenience. Was it being used for a family member as defined by Washington State? And even if it can be shown that the family car doctrine does not apply, then is there another theory of recovery? You might find it important to discover whether or not this doctrine or a similar theory needs to be or need not be argued to trigger insurance coverage of the person who owns the car, or another applicable policy. This would really be contingent on the specific facts of your case. Coverages under an insurance policy may already have been invoked for example if the driver is under the "member of household" or permission to drive clauses are contained in your policy. One has to remember that claimants generally look to insurance policies as the primary source of compensation, and the family purpose doctrine may not be needed as a theory of recovery. In short, more facts are required to answer your question.

If title is in his name, you are not liable. Fact that he is your adult son and lives with you is irrelevant for purposes of liability. If he were a stranger renting a room you would not be liable for the same legal reason.

No, probably not.

If you are not the owner of the car and do not insure the vehicle, then from that aspect, you should not be liable for your son's accident; he is no longer considered a minor. One thing that comes to mind however is the home. If your son has any ownership in the home and a judgment is rendered in favor of the other party, then the home could have a lien placed on it to attempt to secure their judgment. Otherwise, you should not be considered a party an accident caused by your son's actions. As a side note, your son could face fines if he is found driving a vehicle without insurance (in most states). Have him review your state's laws concerning automobile insurance and try to get the amount stated in those laws.

No. tell him to stop the foolishness and buy insurance. If he should be sued after causing an accident DMV may take his right to drive until he pays a judgment and that could be forever for most folks. He may not want to pay insurance premiums but the price he will pay may be effectively out of his sight. (and he will ask you to bail him out).

Your son is legally an adult. He is responsible for his own actions. You are not liable.

No you are not legally responsible for the damages caused by your adult son. It does not matter that he lives at home.

Nope. Only the driver and the owner if the owner has given the driver permission to drive the car.