Maria contends that, notwithstanding the plain language of section 322.09(2), a proper construction of the statute would permit her to recover from her former husband. As authority for that proposition she relies upon Gracie v. Deming, 213 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968), and Farrier v. Thompson, 234 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). While we agree with those cases, they are of no help to the appellant.

Fla. Stat. § 322.09 imputes the negligence of a minor to the legal guardian who signs the minor's driver's license application. Farrier v. Thompson, 234 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1970). If the minor is operating an automobile owned and insured by the guardian who signed the minor's application, liability coverage will generally extend to both the guardian and the minor.

Thus, in order to effect the purpose of the statute, it is in need of a more liberal interpretation. Phillips v. Tooele City Corp., 28 Utah 2d 223, 228-29, 230, 500 P.2d 669, 672, 674 (1972); see also Farrier v. Thompson, 234 So.2d 11, 12-13 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1970). It is a commonly accepted fact that automobiles are not infallible and that from time to time even the best of them are rendered inoperable prior to the time of their ultimate demise.

While our research has not been exhaustive, the case of Bandy v. Duncan, 665 S.W.2d 387 (Tenn. App. 1983), appears to approve punitive damages under a similar statute. For some insight into the operation and purposes behind the statute see Ruiz v. Ruiz, 427 So.2d 298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Farrier v. Thompson, 234 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970); and Gracie v. Deming, 213 So.2d 294 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968). For these reasons I would reinstate Ocha's claim for punitive damages.

The question of the father's liability for violation of restriction by son remains open. See and compare: Farrier v. Thompson, 234 So.2d 11 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). Thereafter, the matter came on to be heard before the trial court on motions for summary judgment filed by Indiana, Travelers, Allstate, and the Caronias.