Home Table of Contents

AMI 706 Agency—Minor Driver's Parent a Passenger

Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil

Ark. Model Jury Instr., Civil AMI 706
Arkansas Model Jury Instructions-Civil
December 2023 Update
Arkansas Supreme Court Committee On Jury Instructions-Civil
Chapter 7. Agency—Employment—Partnership—Joint Enterprise—Imputed Liability
AMI 706 Agency—Minor Driver's Parent a Passenger
[The vehicle][One of the vehicles] involved in this case was driven by (driver), the minor child of (passenger parent), who was a passenger in the vehicle [and owned the vehicle]. You may consider [this fact][these facts][along with any other evidence in the case] in deciding whether (driver) the minor driver, was acting as agent for (passenger parent), [his][her] parent at the time of the occurrence.
Use appropriate bracketed material when the parent in the automobile is also the owner of the car. In many of these situations, agency will not be an issue, because the parent will have signed or was obligated to sign the application for the minor's operator license. Use AMI 802, 803, or 804 to fit the particular fact situation.
In Callaway v. Cherry, 229 Ark. 297, 314 S.W.2d 506 (1958), the Supreme Court held that a parent’s presence in a vehicle driven by a minor child made a jury question of agency even though the parent passenger did not own the car. Of course, if the parent-occupant is also the owner, a stronger argument is made for agency. Although the Callaway case holds that an inference of agency may be drawn from the parent’s presence in the vehicle, it would be an improper comment on the evidence for the court to inform the jury that such an inference may be drawn. Thiel v. Dove, 229 Ark. 601, 317 S.W.2d 121 (1958).
The decision in McMahan v. Berry, 319 Ark. 88, 890 S.W.2d 242 (1994), emphasizes that this instruction is appropriate only when the parent is present in the vehicle.
End of Document