Conn. Gen. Stat. § 14-107
(1949 Rev., S. 2452; 1953, S. 1342d; February, 1965, P.A. 448, S. 14; 1969, P.A. 469; 747, S. 4; 1971, P.A. 332, S. 1; P.A. 73-151, S. 4; 73-172; P.A. 75-198; P.A. 77-340, S. 3; P.A. 79-188, S. 6, 10; P.A. 82-138, S. 2; P.A. 84-128; 84-429, S. 61; P.A. 85-613, S. 31, 154; P.A. 92-126, S. 38, 48; P.A. 03-278, S. 43.)
Inapplicable to civil action. 155 C. 222. Cited. 22 CS 389. Owner who has failed to use due care to prevent overloading under Sec. 14-267 is guilty even though he had no actual or constructive knowledge that vehicle was being overloaded. Id., 482. Cited. 23 CS 424; 30 Conn.Supp. 233. Shifting of burden of proof not a denial of due process re defendant. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 239. Trial court rejected defendant's rebuttal testimony re credibility. Id., 329. Cited. Id., 594. Statute as it relates to presumptive evidence does not violate due process since there is a rational and reasonable connection between the facts proved and the ultimate fact presumed, the prima facie inference raised being based on the common experience that as a general rule the owner of a car drives his own vehicle. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 462, 463. Cited. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 658. Either the operator or the owner of any motor vehicle, or both, may be prosecuted under section for violation of statute which punishes those who evade responsibility in motor vehicle operation, Sec. 14-224. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 561. Registration of motor vehicle being prima facie evidence as to the operator of an offending vehicle is constitutionally valid and does not violate the fourteenth amendment; fifth amendment protection against self-incrimination is not violated because it is not necessary for one to testify to rebut it. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 298.