Anderson v. Nedovich

• Decision Date: 22 June 1989
• Docket Number: No. 7346,7346
• Citation: 561 A.2d 948,19 Conn.App. 85
• Parties: Daniel C. ANDERSON v. Joan V. NEDOVICH, et al.
• Court: Connecticut Court of Appeals

Page 948

561 A.2d 948

19 Conn.App. 85

Daniel C. ANDERSON v. Joan V. NEDOVICH, et al.

No. 7346.

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 16, 1989.

Decided June 22, 1989.

Paul D. Williams, with whom, on the brief, was Susan J. Barnes, Hartford, for appellant (named defendant).

Thomas A. Cloutier, with whom was Marshall S. Feingold, Old Saybrook, for appellee (plaintiff).

Before EDWARD Y. O'CONNELL, FOTI and JACOBSON, JJ.

FOTI, Judge.

The named defendant, ¹ Joan V. Nedovich, appeals from the judgment denying her motion to dissolve or reduce an ex parte prejudgment attachment pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278e. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in finding that probable cause existed to support the validity of the plaintiff's claim. We find no error.

The plaintiff commenced this negligence action against Steven Riter and Joan Nedovich alleging that on March 11, 1988, due to Riter's negligent operation of Nedovich's automobile, Riter caused the car to go out of control. He also alleged that the defendant Nedovich was the registered owner of the vehicle and that Riter was operating the car with her consent and within the scope of her "authorization." As a result of this accident, the plaintiff sustained severe injuries.

Upon commencing this suit, the plaintiff applied for and was granted an ex parte prejudgment attachment on real property of the defendant Nedovich pursuant to General Statutes § 52-278e. The defendant Nedovich moved to dissolve the attachment. After a full hearing, at which the parties stipulated that the sole issue before the court was whether Riter was acting as Nedovich's agent, the trial court denied her motion.

With respect to the relationship between Riter and Nedovich, the trial court found the following facts. At the time of the accident, the defendant Nedovich and her husband, Paul Nedovich, owned two businesses, one in Connecticut and one in Vermont. Riter was employed by the Nedovichs in their Connecticut business. Riter also shared an apartment with the Nedovich's daughter. While Riter's car was being repaired, Riter was permitted to use the Nedovich's Ford pickup truck which was owned by the family business. Just prior to the accident, Paul Nedovich informed his daughter that he and the defendant Nedovich needed the pickup truck to move furniture and directed her to give Riter the car that she usually drove, a 1982 Plymouth Turismo, so that Riter would have alternative transportation to work over the weekend. 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.

The trial court determined that the statutory presumption of agency pursuant to General Statutes § 52-183, ² was applicable and concluded that the plaintiff had "met his burden of demonstrating probable cause to sustain the validity of his claim at this stage of the proceedings."

In determining whether probable cause exists to maintain a prejudgment attachment, the trial court " 'need only weigh the evidence presented and "determine probable success by weighing probabilities." Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, 193 Conn. 174, 176, 474 A.2d 795 (1984).' " Green v. Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ, 16 Conn.App. 700, 703, 549 A.2d 281 (1988). " ' "The legal idea of probable cause is a bona fide belief in the existence of the facts essential under the law for the action and such as would warrant [a person] of ordinary caution, prudence and judgment, under the circumstances, in entertaining it." [Emphasis in original.] Wall v. Toomey, 52 Conn. 35, 36 (1884). Probable cause is a flexible common sense standard. It does not demand that a belief be correct or more likely true than false. Texas v. Brown, 450 U.S. 730, 103 S.Ct. 1535, 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983).' Three S. Development Co. v. Santore, [supra, 193 Conn. at 175, 474 A.2d 795]." L. Suzio Concrete Co. v. Salafia, 3 Conn.App. 404, 407, 488 A.2d 1280 (1985). In addition, the trier is entitled to draw reasonable inferences based on the facts proven. Green v. Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ, supra.

"This court's role in reviewing the trial court's probable cause determination is limited. 'In its determination of probable cause, "the trial court is vested with broad discretion which is not to be overruled in the absence of clear error." ...' Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 364, 493 A.2d 193 (1985). Our role as a reviewing court is limited to determining whether the trial court's conclusion was reasonable, and we may not duplicate the trial court's weighing process.... [W]e need only decide whether the trial court's conclusions were reasonable under the 'clear error' standard." (Citations omitted.) Green v. Holy Trinity Church of God in Christ, supra, 16 Conn.App. at 703-704, 549 A.2d 281. In reviewing the trial court's action, we may presume that the trial court acted properly and in rendering its decision, considered all the evidence. Solomon v. Aberman, 196 Conn. 359, 376, 493 A.2d 193 (1985).

Prior to the hearing, the parties stipulated that the only issue to be determined by the court was whether Riter was acting as Nedovich's agent at the time of the accident, and agreed that for the purpose of the probable cause hearing, the issues of the amount of damages, permissive use and who was operating the car, were not being contested. In rendering its decision that there was probable cause to support the plaintiff's claim of agency, the court applied the statutory presumption of agency pursuant to General Statutes § 52-183. This section creates a presumption that the operator of a motor vehicle is the owner's agent and places the burden of rebutting the presumption on the defendant. To take advantage of this presumption, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the defendant is the owner of the vehicle. Scalora v. Shaughnessy, 151 Conn. 252, 254, 196 A.2d 763 (1963).

As a general matter, "[a] presumption in favor of a party, that a particular fact is true, shifts the burden of persuasion to the proponent of the invalidity of that fact, and that burden is met when, by the particular quantum of proof, the validity of the fact has been rebutted. Holland v. Holland, 188 Conn. 354, 357-58, 449 A.2d 1010 (1982)...." Anderson v. Litchfield, 4 Conn.App. 24, 28, 492 A.2d 210 (1985). The contradicting evidence required to rebut a presumption must be both sufficient and persuasive. Katz v. West Hartford, 191 Conn. 594, 603, 469 A.2d 410 (1983). With respect to the agency presumption established by General Statutes § 52-183, because the "existence and scope of permission is a matter peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant," the defendant's "simple assertion that no consent [to operate the motor vehicle] was ever given," is not enough to overcome the...