It wouldn't be a problem Down Under, because the person driving the car is the one in trouble if they do something wrong. And our police will go to a lot of trouble to make sure who was driving the car. A court case just finalised today - a well-known Sydney judge tried to get out of a traffic fine (speeding, or running a red light or something) for $80, and told the police that it wasn't him driving, it was a friend of his visiting from the US. So they let him off the fine - until the police found out that the woman alleged to be driving the car, had actually died 18 months earlier. Then the judge supplied witnesses to testify that he had been with them at the time, it couldn't have been him, then another witness who said she had been driving the car - so SHE had egg on her face, for giving false witness. The police used the speed cameras as well as phoone records as well as restaurant receipts to prove people were where the police knew they were, instead of where the people said they were. It's really easy to do, the evidence is there.
The judge's original intent was to avoid having yet another trffic infringement (doesn't look good, for a judge to have even traffic infringements). it seems there was an epidemic in the law courts of lawyers, solicitors and judges all lying their way out of traffic fines etc and getting away with it, so I suspect they went after Justice Einfeld to catch him out. It all seemed to have started with him, he had been suspected of pulling this stunt many times previously (like, he ALWAYS said it was someone else driving, to avoid it going onto his record) so the police were determined to staunch the epidemic.
And today they did. After the various witnesses have had the book thrown at them for lying in court, after they've all been exposed and charged with perjury, Justice Einfeld has now been found guilty of attempting to pervert the course of justice and has got 3 years in jail.
I just looked this up:
http://www.smh.com.au/national/form...ng-about-a-77-traffic-fine-20090320-93sr.html
So even if the car is owned by someone else, the responsibility to do the right thing should rest with whoever chooses to drive the car. As long as the car is insured appropriately, there should be no problem. If daughter in law's brother, say, drives the car into someone else's car and is in the wrong, then daughter in law's brother should be the one declared as the driver, and should then bear any costs.
One important warning - daughter in law needs to be certain the car is insured for all possible drivers. She needs to put a statement in writing to her family (keep acopy, signed by the family and dated) that states the names of those who have her permission to drive the car, and making it clear than anyonoe else driving the car will be doing so without her permission and who will therefore have to bear full responsibility for any costs incurred as the result of any accidents.
If her parents make a fuss about this, she can tell them that it is to protect them also, in the event that some kid decides to go for a joy ride, or one of her brothers thinks it's OK to lend the car to a mate. Because it is not, if it means the car's insurance wouldn't cover it.
For example - we have two cars, husband's & mine. Mine is actuallt ther family car, it is in both our names, but it is not insured for an under 25 driver. husband's car IS insured for under 25 driver. So easy child 2/difficult child 2 may drive husband's car, but not mine, because she is still under 25.
BF2 can drive, but does not have a driver's licence and so although he owns his own car, he doesn't drive it, easy child 2/difficult child 2 does. easy child 2/difficult child 2 will very soon go onto her "blacks" or full icence, and will then be legally entitled to teach BF2 to drive (he doesn't need lessons, but legally has to have a driver on blacks as supervising driver in the car, when he is behind the wheel, once he gets his Learner's Permit).
I had a good relationship with my father, but whenever he lent us money or did anything else that was remotely requiring confirmation in writing, he put it in a letter (separate to anything chatty) and formalised it. If you were doing this with a friend or an acquaintance, it is what you should do. So why jeoparidse your family relationship by not doing this? All the more reason to formalise it, family is too important. You don't want any misunderstandings later on because either the parents or daughter in law forgot the fine details and got it wrong.
I hope you can help her understand this. I do understand why she has done tis for her family - she feels obligated. But she needs to protect herself by making it all clear, so she can extricate herself if she needs to, without it causing too many problems for any other innocent party.
Marg