## Facts

- Lance and Lisa Kalfell purchased a 1992 Pontiac Bonneville and provided it to their son, Eric Kalfell, before he left for college.
- While Eric attended college away from home, his driver’s license continued to list the family address.
- Eric remained financially supported by his parents, and his parents claimed him as a dependent on their tax return.
- On February 13, 2000, Eric, driving the Bonneville, was involved in a motor vehicle collision with Kelly Malchose in North Dakota.
- Malchose claimed Eric negligently caused the accident and sought damages for resulting losses.
- Malchose sued Eric for negligence and sued Lance and Lisa based on (a) the family car doctrine, (b) negligent entrustment, and (c) strict liability for basic no-fault benefits under North Dakota’s Auto Accident Reparations Act (including N.D.C.C. § 26.1-41-02(5)).
- Lance and Lisa argued the family car doctrine did not apply because Eric was an adult living away from home, and they also argued Eric was the real owner despite their names remaining on the title.
- As evidence of Eric’s ownership, the parents pointed to Eric’s use of the vehicle as collateral for a personal loan.
- At trial, Malchose offered a Workers Compensation Bureau summary of medical bills (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 7); the Kalfells objected on authentication grounds.
- After a bench trial, the district court found Eric negligent, held Lance and Lisa liable under the family car doctrine and under the no-fault owner-liability statute, and awarded Malchose damages.

## Issues

1. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by admitting a Workers Compensation Bureau summary of Malchose’s medical bills over an authentication objection?
2. Did the trial court err by applying the family car doctrine to impose vicarious liability on Lance and Lisa for Eric’s negligent driving where Eric was an adult, lived away at college, and used the car primarily for his own purposes?
3. Were the trial court’s findings and awards of damages (including wage loss and other economic items and non-economic damages) clearly erroneous?
4. Did the trial court err in determining Lance and Lisa were statutory “owners” under the Auto Accident Reparations Act and therefore strictly liable for basic no-fault benefits?

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Dakota affirmed the judgment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Exhibit 7; the authentication foundation was sufficient for admission.
- The trial court did not clearly err in holding Lance and Lisa vicariously liable under the family car doctrine.
- The trial court’s damages findings were supported by the record and were not clearly erroneous.
- The trial court did not err in finding Lance and Lisa were “owners” for purposes of no-fault basic-benefits liability under the Auto Accident Reparations Act.

## Legal Principles

- Under North Dakota’s family car doctrine, an owner who provides a vehicle for the business or pleasure of the owner’s family may be vicariously liable for negligent driving by a family member operating the vehicle with the owner’s express or implied consent.
- A “family purpose” may be satisfied even when the family member is using the vehicle for personal convenience or pleasure, so long as the vehicle is maintained for family use and the driver is within the family unit as shown by the facts.
- A child’s adulthood and residence away at college do not automatically bar application of the family car doctrine; continued financial dependence and ongoing family ties may support a finding that the driver remained within the family unit and that use of the vehicle was within the scope of permitted family use.
- Evidence that the driver used the vehicle as collateral for a loan does not, by itself, establish a transfer of ownership when title remains in the parents’ names and other incidents of ownership remain with them.
- Under the Auto Accident Reparations Act, the titled owner may be treated as an “owner” responsible for basic no-fault benefits based on title and the surrounding ownership facts.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings on authentication is for abuse of discretion; factual findings after a bench trial, including damages and ownership-related findings, are reviewed for clear error.

## Conclusion

The North Dakota Supreme Court affirmed a bench-trial judgment finding Eric Kalfell negligent and holding his parents, Lance and Lisa Kalfell, liable under the family car doctrine and as statutory owners for basic no-fault benefits, rejecting challenges to authentication of a medical-bills summary and to the trial court’s damages and ownership findings.


Malchose v. Kalfell, 664 N.W.2d 508 (2003)