Opinion
No. CV 10-6007617-S
June 8, 2010
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS #110
This motor vehicle case involves the intersection of General Statutes § 52-556, which allows an action against the state when negligence of an employee or state official, while operating a motor vehicle owned by the state, causes injury to another person, and General Statutes § 52-183, which creates a presumption that the operator of a motor vehicle is the agent or servant of the owner.
The plaintiff alleges that on February 13, 2009, the vehicle he was operating was struck by a Connecticut Transit bus owned by one of the defendants, the state of Connecticut, causing him to sustain injuries. The plaintiff also alleges that the operator of the bus was an agent, servant and/or employee of the state, and cites § 52-183.
The state has moved to dismiss, claiming that the doctrine of sovereign immunity deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction. See Amore v. Frankel, 228 Conn. 358, 364, 636 A.2d 786 (1994) ("doctrine of sovereign immunity implicates subject matter jurisdiction and is therefore a basis for granting a motion to dismiss"). The state maintains that the exception to immunity contained in § 52-556 does not apply because the operator of the state owned bus was not an employee of the state. In support of its motion, the state has submitted an affidavit by Jose E. Rodriguez, the bus operator, in which he attests that he was neither a state employee nor an official at the time of the accident. The state has also submitted the affidavit of Gary Reardon, the payroll director of the state comptroller's office, which asserts that there are no records that indicate Rodriguez was employed by the state at the time of the accident.
The plaintiff has filed an objection to the motion, urging the court to apply § 52-183. Section 52-183 covers all motor vehicles, while § 52-556 applies only to vehicles owned by the state. Statutes specific to a particular subject matter control over a more general statute that may otherwise be applicable. See Branford v. Santa Barbara, 294 Conn. 803, 813-14, 988 A.2d 221 (2010). Accordingly, the more specific statute, § 52-556, controls the outcome of this matter. The case of Plante v. State, 82 Conn.App. 459, 465-66, 844 A.2d 934 (2004), clearly establishes that only state employees and officials are covered by § 52-556. The court finds from the unopposed affidavits filed by the state that the subject operator was neither a state employee nor an official. See Amore v. Frankel, supra, 228 Conn. 368-69 (affidavits may be used in deciding a motion to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Additionally, § 52-183 creates a presumption that an operator is the agent and servant of the owner, not the employee of the owner. Significantly, § 52-556 does not include operators who are agents and servants of the state. Moreover, this court cannot broaden the scope of the statute to include agents and servants because "[s]tatutes in derogation of sovereignty should be strictly construed in favor of the state . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rivers v. New Britain, 288 Conn. 1, 11, 950 A.2d 1247 (2008). Presumably, in cases involving operators of state owned vehicles who are agents or servants of the state, injured parties are required to seek permission of the claims commissioner to bring suit. See Plante v. State, supra, 466 n. 1.
The court concludes that § 52-183 does not apply, and that § 52-556 does not allow the plaintiff's action against the state.
For the foregoing reasons the motion to dismiss is granted.