Safe Driver Lesson One: Stay Awake

Kuebler v Kuebler, 2011 NY Slip Op 09693 [4th Dept 2011] [available here]

I imagine most parents dread teaching their teen children to drive. It seems crazy to cede control of an expensive machine, capable of inflicting wanton death and destruction if used incorrectly, to a teenager, a creature practically guaranteed, by combination of hormones and undeveloped frontal lobes, to make bad decisions. And to have to actually ride along as a glorified child tries to master the basics of operating a complex machine at high speeds? Ludicrous.

But, most parents hopefully do not have it as bad as the dad in Kuebler v Kuebler. Mr. Keubler let his 16-year-old child, proud owner of a learner's permit, drive the family car, with Mr. Keubler riding along as the required licensed driver supervisor.

Things did not end well. Nor did they particularly start well. Within five minutes of leaving home, the 16-year-old fell asleep at the wheel and crashed the car into a tree. Dad was injured, and sued his son for damages.* The dad asked the trial court to find that his son's actions--you know, falling asleep and driving off the road--were the sole, 100% cause of his injuries, and that the father's damages should not be reduced for any contributory negligence on his part. The trial court agreed, and the son appealed.

The Fourth Department reversed, holding that the father was no mere passenger. He was duty-bound, as the only licensed driver in the vehicle, to supervise his son and to "take necessary measures to prevent negligence on the part of the driver with the learner's permit." This included, apparently, making sure that his son did not fall asleep at the wheel. There was proof that the father did not closely supervise his son, and in fact "was preoccupied with reviewing a list on a piece of paper" and did not even know things were going pear-shaped until he felt the vehicle leave the roadway. Given those facts, the Fourth Department held that the jury should be free to consider whether the father contributed to his injuries by his own failure to properly supervise his son.

Justices Carni and Lindley wrote a separate concurrence, and would also have held that the father's damages could be reduced because he assumed the risk of driving with his 16-year-old son, the same way a sky diver or bungee jumper takes the risk that the ultra-dangerous activity will result in injury. This seems about right.

*This seems weird, and it is, but it happens when a parent needs to get at the proceeds of an insurance policy covering the child.