Simmons v. Hill

Eileen and Robert Simmons, husband and wife, sued Robert and Jeremy Hill, father and son, for injuries Mrs. Simmons allegedly sustained when a pick-up truck driven by Jeremy collided with their car. The Simmonses alleged that Jeremy1 negligently caused the collision and that Hill, who owned the truck, was liable for his son’s negligence under the family purpose doctrine. The trial court granted Hill’s motion for summary judgment, ruling that the family purpose doctrine did not apply because Jeremy was not a member of Hill’s immediate household when the collision occurred. The Simmonses appeal, and we affirm.

A defendant is entitled to summary judgment if he demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to at least one of the essential elements of the plaintiff’s case.2 We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence and all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.3