CACI 723 Liability of Cosigner of Minor’s Application for Driver’s License
California Civil Jury Instructions CACI
723 Liability of Cosigner of Minor’s Application for Driver’s License
[Name of plaintiff] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] was harmed by [name of minor]’s negligence in operating the vehicle and that [name of defendant] is responsible for the harm because [name of defendant] signed [name of minor]’s application for a driver’s license. To establish this claim, [name of plaintiff] must prove all of the following:
1.That [name of minor] was negligent in operating the vehicle;
2.That [name of plaintiff] was harmed;
3.That [name of minor]’s negligence was a substantial factor in causing the harm;
4.That [name of defendant] signed [name of minor]’s application for a driver’s license; and
5.That at the time of the collision [name of minor]’s driver’s license had not been canceled or revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
Sources and Authority
•Liability of Cosigner of Minor’s Driver’s License Application. Vehicle Code section 17707.
•No Liability if Minor is Agent of Another. Vehicle Code section 17710.
•Application for Relief From Liability. Vehicle Code section 17711.
•“Cancellation accomplishes voluntarily what revocation [of minor’s driver’s license] accomplishes involuntarily. If termination is accomplished by the latter method, resort to the former becomes superfluous. Once revocation occurs, the driving privilege is at an end. Thereafter there is no reason and no necessity for a voluntary application to terminate that which has already been terminated involuntarily. Both means are equally effective to terminate the driving privilege and to terminate the signer’s liability.” (Hamilton v. Dick (1967) 254 Cal.App.2d 123, 125 [61 Cal.Rptr. 894].)
•“[T]he negligence of the minor son of the [parents] is imputed to them … by virtue of their having signed his application for an operator’s license, which was not revoked or cancelled at the time of the accident in question, notwithstanding the fact that the license was then temporarily suspended” and even though the parents specifically forbade the minor from operating the vehicle. (Sleeper v. Woodmansee (1936) 11 Cal.App.2d 595, 598 [54 P.2d 519].)
•“It seems quite evident that, in adopting [the predecessors to sections 17150 and 17707] of the Vehicle Code, the legislature intended to create a limited liability for imputed negligence against both the owner of an automobile and the signer of a driver’s license. … We must assume the legislature intended to fix a limited liability … for imputed negligence against the owner of an automobile and the signer of a driver’s license or either of them and that it did not intend to double that limited liability when the same individual was both the owner of the machine and the signer of the license.” (Rogers v. Foppiano (1937) 23 Cal.App.2d 87, 92–93 [72 P.2d 239].)