In Young v. Beck, 227 Ariz. 1, 251 P.3d 380 (2011), the most recent Arizona case concerning the doctrine, our supreme court reaffirmed the doctrine's vitality and recapped its rationale. There, the parents of the seventeen-year-old Beck provided him with a car that he could drive to school, church, and work. Id. at 3,2, 251 P.3d at 382. After Beck was involved in an accident, his parents told him not to use the car to "taxi" his friends around or to drive their girlfriends home. Id. A month later, Beck used the car to drive himself and his friends around so that they could throw eggs at houses and cars parked on the street. Id. at 3-4. After the egging, Beck dropped off a friend's girlfriend and, on his way to drop off another friend, collided with Young, who was seriously injured. Id. at4. Under the family purpose doctrine, Young won a judgment against Beck's parents, and this court affirmed it. Id. at 5-6. The Becks appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, arguing that the family purpose doctrine had been abolished by the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act ("UCATA"). See id. at 4,12, 251 P.3d at 383.