Kenneth and Barbara Beck provided their seventeen-year-old son, Jason, who lived with them in Arizona, with an SUV for transportation. He was the primary driver of the vehicle, and he drove it to and from school, work, and church, as well as for social and recreational purposes. However, after Jason was involved in an automobile accident with the SUV, his parents specifically instructed him not to taxi his friends with the vehicle. The next month Jason received permission from Barbara to drive the SUV to a friend's house, spend the night there, and drive the SUV back home. He did not ask or have permission to use the SUV in any other way. Nonetheless, that night he drove several friends around while they threw eggs at houses and parked cars. Later in the evening, as Jason drove one of the friends home, the SUV was involved in a collision with Ann Young's car due to Jason's negligence. Young was severely injured.

Young sued Jason for his negligence, but also sued Kenneth and Barbara under the common law family purpose doctrine, which subjects a vehicle's owner to liability for a family member's negligence in operating the vehicle if the owner has provided the vehicle for family use and if the negligent driver was using the vehicle for a family purpose at the time of the accident. The Becks argued that Arizona should abolish the family purpose doctrine, despite that it had been the law in the state for nearly 100 years. Given the modern auto insurance market, should the Arizona Supreme Court modify the common law to jettison the family purpose doctrine, which has the purpose of allowing an injured party to take action against the party who presumably is in a better financial position to compensate the injured party than the negligent driver would be (especially if the driver is a minor)? If so, why? If not, should the Becks be subject to the rule given these facts?

Thanks in advance, just need some help.