2012 Connecticut General Statutes
Title 52 - Civil Actions
Chapter 899 - Evidence
Section 52-182 - Presumption of family car or motorboat in operation by certain person.

Proof that the operator of a motor vehicle or a motorboat, as defined in section 15-127, was the husband, wife, father, mother, son or daughter of the owner shall raise a presumption that such motor vehicle or motorboat was being operated as a family car or boat within the scope of a general authority from the owner, and shall impose upon the defendant the burden of rebutting such presumption.

(1949 Rev., S. 7904; 1967, P.A. 310.)

History: 1967 act added motorboats to scope of section.

Cited. 9 CA 221. Cited. 38 CA 852.

Defendant must prove facts sufficient to rebut the presumption, not merely introduce evidence. 5 CS 97. In-law relationship does not come within section. Id., 16 CS 195. Doctrine not applicable to serviceman who, while overseas, loaned car to brother. 14 CS 236. Where father lived in Massachusetts and son in Connecticut, car not regarded as family car. 15 CS 146. Presumption avails plaintiff even where defendant driver was operating wife’s vehicle on company business for which company was paying for gas and oil. 17 CS 64. Failure of plaintiff to allege agency under family car doctrine not demurrable. Id., 75. Presumption does not arise where driver is son of owner’s employee. 25 CS 35. Father and son relationship must be shown between driver and owner. Id. Contributory negligence of operator of family car is imputable to plaintiff-owner so as to bar recovery by him for damage to it. 26 CS 387. Negligence of driver of family car is not imputed to owner-occupant and demurrer to defense of imputed negligence should be sustained. 28 CS 90. The purpose of this section is to govern procedure, not to affect or create substantive rights. 32 CS 158. Cited. 42 CS 114.

Applies only to cases where plaintiff invokes statute to assist recovery against defendant and not to cases where defendant invokes statute to prevent recovery by plaintiff. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 654. Statute evidences no legislative intent to create a universally applicable vicarious responsibility. Id., 659. An indispensable requisite of the family purpose doctrine is that the person on whom it is sought to impose liability exercise some degree of control over the automobile’s use. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 591, 594.