The doctrine requires that the vehicle be operated with the express or implied consent of the owner. Camper, 915 S.W.2d at 447. In other words, the owner must have some control over the vehicle's use. '[C]ontrol over the use of the vehicle is the critical element. The owner or provider of the vehicle must have given the actual or implied consent to the operator to drive the vehicle.' 4 J.D. Lee & Barry A. Lindahl, Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation (2d ed. 2006) § 34:7, at 34-9 (footnote omitted). The family purpose doctrine is based in part on the factual presumption that the child is subject to parental control. Camper, 915 S.W.2d at 447; Gray, 869 S.W.2d at 927; Adkins, 82 S.W.2d at 868. Indeed, in King, the seminal family purpose doctrine case in this state, this Court implicitly acknowledged the significance of the element of control justifying imposition of vicarious liability as a means of advancing the doctrine's goal of securing public safety, stating, '[t]he father, as owner of the automobile and as head of the family, can prescribe the conditions upon which [the vehicle] may be run upon the roads and streets, ...