Bell v. West

The majority today does not reject the family purpose doctrine. It reaffirms it for West Virginia.1 What it does, is limit it unnecessarily and I believe, unwisely.

Our Court supports the public policy underlying the rule as articulated in Watson v. Burley, 105 W. Va. 416, 420, 143 S.E. 95, 96 (1928):

A moving consideration for this adoption [of the family purpose doctrine] was to place “the financial responsibility of the owner behind the automobile while it is being used by a member of the family, who is likely to be financially irresponsible.” Should we not give to the word “family” a…