## Facts

- Thomas Renny and Denise D’Meo bought a dirt bike (a small motorcycle) for their minor son, Justin, to ride on dirt-bike trails.
- The dirt bike had no lights or reflectors, and Justin did not have a license to operate it.
- The dirt bike was not kept at defendants’ home; it was stored in the garage of Justin’s friend, near the trails.
- Justin knew the garage-door access code, and the ignition keys were kept with the dirt bike.
- One night, defendants allowed Justin to stay overnight at a different friend’s home; defendants did not give Justin express permission to use the dirt bike that night and were unaware he would do so.
- At about 11:30 p.m., Justin took the dirt bike and rode it on a public roadway, where he collided with a Ford Mustang driven by Michella Ventres, causing injuries and property damage.
- Police cited Justin for multiple motor-vehicle violations, including careless driving and operating an unlicensed and uninsured vehicle.
- Nancy Ventres sued defendants in the Special Civil Part seeking compensation for property damage to the Mustang and unpaid medical expenses arising from the collision.
- After a bench trial, the court denied the medical-expense claim but entered judgment for plaintiffs for $4,046.83 in property damage, finding Justin’s operation was “permissive” and attributing responsibility to the parents.
- Defendants appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether parents may be held vicariously liable for their minor child’s negligent operation of a dirt bike on a public road where the child acted without the parents’ knowledge or express permission and outside the purpose for which the bike was provided.
2. Whether the trial court erred in treating the child’s access to the dirt bike (garage code and keys kept with the bike) as “permissive use” sufficient to impose liability on the parents.

## Decision

- The Appellate Division reversed the Special Civil Part judgment awarding property damages against the parents.
- The court concluded defendants were not vicariously liable because Justin was not acting as their agent when he took the dirt bike onto the roadway late at night without their knowledge or permission.
- The court rejected the view that access to the vehicle, standing alone, established legally meaningful permission for the specific use that caused the collision.
- The result vacated the property-damage award entered against defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Vicarious liability for a child’s negligence is not imposed solely because of the parent-child relationship; it requires a recognized basis such as agency (or an applicable statute).
- “Permissive use” depends on the scope of the permission actually given; a child’s unauthorized use for an unapproved purpose does not become permissive merely because the child could access the vehicle.
- Providing a recreational vehicle for limited off-road use does not, by itself, make parents responsible for damages caused when the child independently and unlawfully operates it on a public road without consent.

## Conclusion

Ventres v. Renny holds that parents who purchased a dirt bike for their minor child’s trail riding were not vicariously liable for property damage from a late-night roadway collision where the child took and operated the bike without the parents’ knowledge or express permission and outside any authorized purpose, so the judgment against the parents for property damage was reversed.


Ventres v. Renny, 2009 WL 160432 (2009)