underinsured and the motion court correctly determined that the Bowdens are not entitled to recover pursuant to their underinsured vehicle policy. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. 1 . The driver’s parents live separately. 2 . A person who is vicariously liable for the tort of another is not a joint tortfeasor subject to separate liability; rather she or he shares in the liability of the tortfeasor because of a special relationship with the tortfeasor. See BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 927 (7th ed. 1999) (defining vicarious liability as "[ljiability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) because of the relationship between the two parties”); York v. Day’s, Inc., 153 Me. 441, 140 A.2d 730 (1958) (<HOLDING>). 3 . The underinsured vehicle policy provides,
holding the fact that an exempt owner who acquired legal title after date when liability for current taxes had accrued was the equitable owner did not make the exemption applicable holding that vehicle owner not present in the vehicle when it was stopped had not suffered interference with his possessory interest and could not challenge the constitutionality of the stop holding that a statute imposing joint and several liability on a vehicle owner for a minors conduct while driving the vehicle with permission imputed financial liability rather than fault to the vehicles owner holding that unlicensed driver who was driving vehicle with permission of owners permittee could reasonably believe that permittee had authority to permit him to drive vehicle and thus driv er was entitled to liability coverage notwithstanding auto policy exclusion for any person using a vehicle without a reasonable belief that person is entitled to do so driver could have reasonable belief that he was entitled to use vehicle even though he was unlicensed where he was doing so at specific request of permittee and actual owner never instructed driver not to drive vehicle nor instructed permittee not to allow others to drive vehicle holding that to be convicted under dwi statute a person must be driving or in actual physical control of the vehicle but motion of the vehicle is not necessary