The statutory purpose of this section is to ensure financial responsibility for a minor's use of a vehicle, and it does not impose liability on a party signing the application for license where the law imposes none on the minor for whom the financial responsibility is assumed. Kyser v. Porter, 261 Ark. 351, 548 S.W.2d 128 (1977).

The intent of this section is to impute the negligence of a minor, whether such negligence is characterized as negligence, contributory negligence, or comparative negligence, to the parents. Garrison v. Funderburk, 262 Ark. 711, 561 S.W.2d 73 (1978).

Only if neither parent is living is anyone else authorized to sign a minor's application for a driver's license. Jones v. Davis, 300 Ark. 130, 777 S.W.2d 582 (1989).

Minor's cousin, who signed his application for him even though he was not authorized to sign because the boy's mother was living and he did not have custody or guardianship of the minor, was properly found joint and severally liable for minor's negligence; the act of signing the application brought him within the purview of the statute and he could not say he should be excused from the liability incurred under the statutory provisions because he acted in a manner not authorized by that statute. Jackson v. Houchin, 85 Ark. App. 11, 144 S.W.3d 764 (2004).

Where a minor driving his parent's automobile was found to be a certain percent at fault in an accident, the minor's comparative negligence would be imputed to his parent. Garrison v. Funderburk, 262 Ark. 711, 561 S.W.2d 73 (1978).

Where a parent sues for damages on his own behalf and on behalf of a minor child in a cause of action arising out of the same negligent act, the child's contributory negligence may be asserted against the parent even though the negligence is not imputed to the parent, the parent's cause of action being deemed to be derivative and subject to the comparative negligence of the child. Kirkendoll v. Hogan, 267 Ark. 1083, 593 S.W.2d 498 (Ct. App. 1980).

In an action against the owner of an automobile for negligence or willful misconduct of a minor in possession of the automobile, this section does not transfer to the owner, as a bar against his own negligence, all of the defenses the minor driver may have. Garrison v. Williams, 246 Ark. 1172, 442 S.W.2d 231 (1969).

Since this section does not impose liability on a party signing the application for license where the law imposes none on a minor for whom the financial responsibility was assumed, defenses which the minor might have under the guest statute would also be available to the parent. Kyser v. Porter, 261 Ark. 351, 548 S.W.2d 128 (1977).

Where a collision occurred upon a paved road on school grounds, the road leading from a parking area to the city street and being open for use by students and others having occasion to enter the school yard, it was held that such road was a highway, a “highway” being defined to be a “carriage way, a horse way, a foot way, or a navigable river.” Summerhill v. Shannon, 235 Ark. 617, 361 S.W.2d 271 (1962).

Where the trial court refused to give a model instruction, as requested by the plaintiff, to the effect that the parents of a defendant minor child who was operating a vehicle which struck the plaintiff's decedent were required by law to sign the minor's application for an operator's license and that if they knowingly permitted the minor to drive the vehicle and if the minor was negligent, then his negligence would be charged to his parents, the refusal by the trial court was not error, since no issue was presented as to whether the parents had signed the license application or whether they had permitted the minor to drive and also since the instruction could have been prejudicial because, as the plaintiff's attorney seemed to admit, such an instruction would have made it more likely for the jury to have determined that the minor was negligent, despite its irrelevancy to that conclusion. Andrews v. Springer, 268 Ark. 646, 594 S.W.2d 586 (Ct. App. 1980).

As to parents held liable for negligence of minor children, see Richardson v. Donaldson, 220 Ark. 173, 246 S.W.2d 551 (1952), questioned, Vaught v. Ross, 244 Ark. 1218, 428 S.W.2d 631 (Ark. 1968); Vaught v. Ross, 244 Ark. 1218, 428 S.W.2d 631 (Ark. 1968); Ross v. Vaught, 246 Ark. 1002, 440 S.W.2d 540 (1969); Garrison v. Williams, 246 Ark. 1172, 442 S.W.2d 231 (1969); Rogers v. Watkins, 258 Ark. 394, 525 S.W.2d 665 (1975); Rogers v. MFA Mut. Ins. Co., 262 Ark. 55, 554 S.W.2d 327 (1977).

Cited: Elrod v. G & R Constr. Co., 275 Ark. 151, 628 S.W.2d 17, 30 A.L.R.4th 831 (1982); Jones v. Davis, 300 Ark. 130, 777 S.W.2d 582 (1989); LeClaire v. Commercial Siding & Maintenance Co., 308 Ark. 580, 826 S.W.2d 247 (1992).