In any civil action brought against the owner of a motor vehicle to recover damages for the negligent or reckless operation of the motor vehicle, the operator, if he is other than the owner of the motor vehicle, shall be presumed to be the agent and servant of the owner of the motor vehicle and operating it in the course of his employment. The defendant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption.
(1949 Rev., S. 7905; P.A. 82-160, S. 85.)
History: P.A. 82-160 rephrased the section.
Cited. 123 C. 396. Presumption avails plaintiff until trier finds proven the circumstances with reference to use of car and authority to drive it, leaving burden then on plaintiff to establish that car was being operated by agent in course of employment. Id., 459. Presumption not rebutted by mere offer of substantial countervailing evidence; jury not obliged to accept testimony offered by defendant on agency and may find for plaintiff even if he produces no evidence on that issue. 126 C. 587. Nature of presumption; burden on defendant is restricted to rebutting presumption. 130 C. 185; Id., 684. Plaintiff does not waive benefit of presumption of agency by introducing evidence of the fact of agency on his case in chief. 137 C. 675. Inapplicable where there is no allegation re ownership of car. 145 C. 605. If dealer's plates are affixed to motor vehicle, they constitute prima facie evidence of ownership by dealer to whom plates were issued. 151 C. 252. Cited. 155 C. 218, 221; 156 C. 194. Directed verdict for defendant was proper where plaintiff's proof showed defendant loaned her car to her nephew for his personal family use in course of which accident occurred. 157 C. 258. Presumption is not ousted by mere introduction of contrary evidence, but ceases to operate when trier finds proven facts which fairly put question in issues; direction of verdict for defendant is generally precluded. 164 C. 277. Cited. 190 C. 774; 211 C. 555. Section creates rebuttable presumption of employer-employee relationship between owner and operator of a motor vehicle, rendering owner vicariously liable for compensatory damages arising out of negligent and reckless conduct of the operator, but not vicariously liable for punitive damages stemming from that conduct. 266 C. 822.
Cited. 9 CA 221; 11 CA 485; 19 CA 85; 25 CA 665. Discussion of the word “owner”; trial court improperly granted defendant's motion to set aside verdict where jury reasonably could have found from evidence presented that public transit bus involved in accident was owned by defendant and that defendant did not rebut presumption arising under section that bus was operated by agent of defendant acting within the scope of his agency at the time of the accident. 61 CA 29. Presumption is not ousted simply by introduction of any evidence to the contrary. 83 CA 782.
It is unnecessary to allege agency since statute raises such presumption. 4 CS 226, but see 12 CS 279 and 14 CS 342. Presumption is not overcome by any substantial countervailing evidence but is effective until defendant proves the truth as to what the facts are by a fair preponderance of evidence. 5 CS 20; Id., 97. Describing defendant as “brother, agent and servant” does not waive presumption of agency in favor of plaintiff. 9 CS 193. Statute does not create a new kind of agency but only creates a presumption of agency susceptible to rebuttal. 12 CS 279. Cited. 14 CS 238; 15 CS 148; 16 CS 194. Allegation of ownership and operation are sufficient to raise statutory presumption of agency. 17 CS 49. Section primarily designed to apply to commercial vehicles. Id., 73. Motion for summary judgment by defendant in effect sought to deprive plaintiff of benefit of presumption; denied. 27 CS 108. Cited. 32 CS 158.
Cited. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 653. Where a minor's vehicle is registered in the name of the father for the purpose of evading financial responsibility, the registered owner of the vehicle is estopped to deny not only ownership of the vehicle but also that the minor-owner was acting in furtherance of the business of the father when the tort occurred. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 591, 598. Statute does not establish that operator of car is agent of owner, acting within scope of his employment, but only creates a rebuttable presumption. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 113.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
30
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2025 · leading case:
Matthiessen v. Vanech, 836 A.2d 394 (Conn. 2003).
Matthiessen v. Vanech, 836 A.2d 394 (Conn. 2003).
· cites it 28× “The plaintiff contends that General Statutes § 52-183 13 abrogates that common-law principle, thereby permit *836 ting an award of punitive damages against Nicholas Vanech.”
Schimmelpfennig v. Cutler, 783 A.2d 1033 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001).
· cites it 10× “With regard to Cargill, the plaintiff alleged liability pursuant to General Statutes §§ 52-183 4 and 14-154a.”
Cook v. Nye, 518 A.2d 77 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986).
· cites it 6× “The court also concluded that the defendant was estopped from denying ownership of the motor vehicle under General Statutes § 52-183, which provides: “[i]n any civil action brought against the owner of a motor vehicle to recover damages for the negligent or reckless operation of…”
Anderson v. Nedovich, 561 A.2d 948 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989).
· cites it 6× “This car was owned by and registered to the defendant Nedovich. It was while the defendant Riter was operating this replacement vehicle that the accident occurred.”
Trichilo v. Trichilo, 462 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 1983).
· cites it 4× “*779 General Statutes § 52-183 6 creates a presumption that the operator of a motor vehicle is the “agent and servant of the owner of such motor vehicle and operating the same in the course of his employment, and the defendant shall have the burden of rebutting such presumption.”
Bauer v. Pounds, 762 A.2d 499 (Conn. App. Ct. 2000).
· cites it 5× “Blazi 1138 West Main Street Waterbury, CT 06708” General Statutes § 52-183 provides: “In any civil action brought against the owner of a motor vehicle to recover damages for the negligent or reckless operation of the motor vehicle, the operator, if he is other than the owner of…”
Felsted v. Kimberly Auto Servs., Inc., 596 A.2d 14 (Conn. App. Ct. 1991).
· cites it 3× “Moreover, the trial court cautioned the jurors to rely on their own recollection of the evidence, and not to rely on the court’s recitation of the facts. B The plaintiffs also assert that the court improperly charged the jury on the shifting burden of proof regarding the…”
Stone v. East Coast Swappers, LLC, 337 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 2× “, General Statutes § 5-145a (hypertension and heart dis- ease presumed to have been suffered in performance of certain personnel’s duty); General Statutes § 46b-56b (presumption that it is in best interest of child to be in custody of parent); General Statutes § 52-183 (presump-…”
Madsen v. Gates, 857 A.2d 412 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “The plaintiffs brought an action against Gates sounding in negligence and against the town pursuant to General Statutes § 52-183 and in compliance with § 7-465.”
Cima v. Sciaretta, 58 A.3d 345 (Conn. App. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 5× “At that time, the defendant took exception to charge eleven, the charge on negligence in general, arguing that the instruction improperly expanded the family car doctrine beyond what was contemplated under § 52-182, that the family car doctrine did not apply in this case and…”
Engram v. Kraft, 851 A.2d 363 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 8× “1 The plaintiff claims on appeal that the court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment because (1) summary judgment cannot be granted on the basis of a plaintiffs failure to prove agency pursuant to General Statutes § 52-183, (2) there is a genuine issue…”
Bebry v. Zanauskas, 841 A.2d 282 (Conn. App. Ct. 2004).
· cites it 2× “Those facts were material, however, only to the plaintiffs’ claims under the family car doctrine embodied in General Statutes § 52-182 and as to the presumption of agency in General Statutes § 52-183.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.