## Facts

- James Clark, the head of a household, bought and maintained an automobile for the general use of his family.
- Clark’s minor daughter had general permission to use the car whenever she wished.
- While using the car solely for her own pleasure, the daughter negligently drove and injured B. F. Watkins.
- Watkins sued Clark, seeking to hold him liable as the vehicle owner and parent.

## Issues

1. Whether a parent who owns and maintains an automobile for family use is vicariously liable for a minor child’s negligent driving when the child is using the car with general permission for personal pleasure.
2. Whether ownership and permissive family use, without proof of agency or service to the owner, is enough to impose liability under a family-purpose theory.

## Decision

- The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed judgment for Clark.
- The court held Clark was not vicariously liable because the daughter was not acting as Clark’s servant or agent, and her trip was not within the scope of any agency or employment.
- The trial court properly sustained Clark’s demurrer to the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- A parent is not liable for a minor child’s torts solely due to the parent-child relationship.
- Mere automobile ownership, combined with broad permission for another to use the vehicle, does not establish vicarious liability without an agency or servant relationship.
- Kansas does not impose liability on a head of household based on the family-purpose doctrine; liability depends on proof that the driver was the owner’s agent or servant acting within the scope of that relationship.

## Conclusion

Kansas refused to treat family pleasure use of a household automobile as implied agency and required traditional proof of agency and scope of service before imposing vicarious liability on the owner-parent for a minor child’s negligent driving.


Watkins v. Clark, 103 Kan. 629, 176 P. 131 (Kan. 1918)