Opinion
No. CV 04-0833934
May 25, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION TO DISMISS
There is a challenge to subject matter jurisdiction based on the fact that the plaintiff does not have title. In Hope v. Cavallo, 163 Conn. 576, 316 A.2d 407 (1972), our Supreme Court was faced with a similar issue, namely, whether the plaintiff could sue the state of Connecticut for negligent operation of a motor vehicle under General Statutes § 52-556. That statute authorized a cause of action for injuries caused by motor vehicles owned by the state. The United States government held title to the truck involved in the accident. The truck had been "issued" to the state. The state claimed that since it was not the owner of the truck, the plaintiff could not sue it under the statute.
The Supreme Court held otherwise and stated, "[t]he term `owner' is one of general application and includes one having an interest other than the full legal and beneficial title . . . The word owner is one of flexible meaning, and it varies from an absolute proprietary interest to a mere possessory right . . . It is not a technical term and, thus, is not confined to a person who has the absolute right in a chattel, but also applies to a person who has possession and control thereof." (Citations omitted.) Id., 580-81; see also Smith v. Planning Zoning Board, 3 Conn.App. 550, 553, 490 A.2d 539 (1985); Lazoff v. Padgett, 2 Conn.App. 246, 249, 477 A.2d 155, cert. denied, 194 Conn. 806, 482 A.2d 711 (1984). "In addition, it should also be noted that, generally, the individual who must sustain the loss of property in case of destruction is considered the owner and `both in common parlance and legal acceptation, [the] property is his.'" (Emphasis in original.) Hope v. Cavallo, supra, 585. "Applying this definition to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court held that the state could be an owner for purposes of being sued under General Statutes § 52-556 even though the United States government held title to the truck." Gill v. Petrazzuoli Bros., Inc., 10 Conn.App. 22, 27 (1987).
Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied.