Opinion
File No. 53788
A. S. Bordon, Attorney for the Plaintiff.
Wells, Davis, Schaefer Locke; Donald C. Fiske, Attorneys for the Defendants.
The plaintiff seeks to recover for injuries due to the negligence of the defendants. The defendant owner of the automobile seeks to escape liability on the ground that there is no allegation of agency in the complaint concerning the driver. Held: It is unnecessary to allege such agency for the statutes raises a legal presumption to that effect which need not be pleaded.
MEMORANDUM FILED OCTOBER 7, 1936.
Deeming unnecessary a recital of the facts, the Court is entirely satisfied that the injuries sustained by the plaintiff were due solely to the negligence of the defendant, Gebler.
The claim of the defendant, Gebler, that he should escape the effect of Gebler's negligence because no allegation of agency appears in the complaint finds its answer in the rule that it is not necessary to allege that Gebler was the agent of the owner of the automobile, because the statute raises a legal presumption to that effect which need not be pleaded. Cum. Supp., Section 1661C; Smith vs. Furness, 117 Conn. 97, 102.