## Facts

- Dr. F. D. Smythe, a Memphis surgeon, owned and maintained an automobile for both his professional use and the pleasure and convenience of his household.
- Smythe kept the car with a chauffeur and allowed household members to use it when he did not need it.
- Smythe’s adult son, Frank W. Smythe (about 24), lived in Smythe’s home and was supported by him.
- Smythe gave Frank general permission to use the car without asking on each occasion, so long as Smythe was not using it.
- On the night of the collision, Frank drove the car alone for his own pleasure and was not running an errand or performing a service for Smythe.
- Frank collided with Sherman G. King’s automobile, allegedly causing damage to King’s vehicle.
- King sued Smythe, seeking to hold the owner liable for the son’s negligent operation of the automobile.

## Issues

1. Whether the head of a household who maintains an automobile for family pleasure and convenience is vicariously liable when an adult household member negligently drives the car for personal pleasure with the owner’s general permission.
2. Whether liability depends on (a) the driver’s adult status, (b) absence of a specific errand for the owner, (c) general rather than specific permission, or (d) the fact the driver was the only family member in the car.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the intermediate appellate court and reinstated the plaintiff’s verdict.
- The court held Smythe liable for the negligence of his adult son while using the automobile for pleasure with Smythe’s general permission.
- The court treated the son’s pleasure use as within one of the purposes for which Smythe acquired and maintained the automobile (family pleasure and convenience).
- The court ruled that general permission was sufficient; liability did not turn on permission being granted for the particular trip.
- The court rejected distinctions based on the son being an adult, not acting in Smythe’s immediate business, or driving alone without other family members present.

## Legal Principles

- Under the family purpose doctrine, when the head of a household provides and maintains an automobile for the pleasure and convenience of the family, a household member who uses it with permission for that purpose is treated as acting for the owner, supporting vicarious liability for negligent operation.
- A household member’s personal pleasure trip can fall within the “family purpose” for which the car is maintained, even if the driver is an adult and not performing a specific service or errand for the owner at the time.
- Liability does not depend on whether permission was specific to the occasion or generally granted for household use when the car is available.
- Liability does not depend on transporting other family members; it is enough that the vehicle is being used by a household member for the family-use purpose contemplated by the owner.

## Conclusion

The court adopted Tennessee’s family purpose doctrine by holding an automobile owner liable for a collision caused by his adult, co-resident son who drove the car for personal pleasure under the owner’s general permission, because the pleasure use was within the purpose for which the vehicle was maintained for the household.


King v. Smythe, 140 Tenn. 217, 204 S.W. 296 (Tenn. 1918)