Starr v. Hill
Tennessee Supreme Court
353 S.W.3d 478 (2011)
- Written by Rose VanHofwegen, JD
Facts
When Paul Hill Jr. (Son) (codefendant) turned sixteen, Paul Hill Sr. (Father) (codefendant) bought him a car, in accordance with a divorce decree. While driving home from a holiday shopping trip with his sister and her friend, Son collided with Arlene Starr (plaintiff). Starr sued both Father and Son, asserting that Son’s negligence caused the accident and that Father held liability under the family-purpose doctrine. Father moved for summary judgment, arguing that the family-purpose doctrine did not apply because Son did not live with him at the time of the accident and used the car solely for his own purposes, not family purposes. Father argued he had no control over Son’s use of the vehicle and deferred to his mother to set driving parameters. Under the divorce decree, Son resided with his mother, who held responsibility for day-to-day parenting decisions, but Father retained joint responsibility for decisions related to extracurricular activities. The trial court granted summary judgment for Father, but the appellate court reversed, prompting Father to appeal to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
