Our firm was not involved in the case described in this article.
A boat driver was injured when jet skiers cut off his boat and he had to make an abrupt maneuver to avoid hitting one of the jet skis. As a result a passenger in the boat fell on the driver. The driver suffered a broken collarbone and other injuries.
The boat driver sued the owner of the jet skis, and the son and grandson, who were each operating a jet ski owned by the grandfather.
The grandfather testified that he had allowed the son and grandson on occasion to use the jet skis in the past, including the morning of the day of the accident. However, he claimed that because he expected the river to be very bust with holiday traffic he specifically forbade any further use of the jet skis that day. He claimed the son and grandson were operating the jet skis without his permission, and indeed against his expressly stated will, in the afternoon when the accident occurred.
The court dismissed all claims against the grandfather. The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that under prior Washington case law “parents are not responsible for torts of their children ‘solely on the ground of relationship.’” [1]
The boat driver argued for liability based in part on two legal doctrines. One is the rebuttable presumption that the operator of a motor vehicle is acting as the agent of the owner. The boat driver also argued for the extension of the family car doctrine to jet skis. The Court of Appeals declined to extend either legal presumption to jet skis, noting that these rules developed because motor vehicles are both hazardous and ubiquitous.
The Court also noted that even if either doctrine applied, the testimony rebutted the presumptions. There was no evidence to refute the grandfather’s testimony. Further, the family car doctrine even if extended to jet skis would not apply because neither the son nor the grandson were members of the grandfather’s household. Contrary to widely held misconception, the owner of the jet ski was not automatically liable. This is a short article about one court opinion. It is not a substitute for legal advice. If you have questions about an injury claim you should contact an attorney.
[1] Pace v. Davis, Unpublished Opinion (64558-7-I, May 09, 2011), citing Pflugmacher v. Thomas, 34 Wn.2d 687, 690, 209 P.2d 443 (1949).