DocketNumber: No. CV01 0806035 S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 246, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 207
Judges: BEACH, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/2/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The plaintiff is the conservator of the estate of one Juan Torres, who allegedly was rendered quadriplegic in an accident on July 17, 2000. The defendant Gonzalez allegedly backed a van being operated as a farm vehicle over the plaintiff while both were in the employ of the defendant Millane Nurseries, Inc. Gonzalez left the area on the day of the accident and has not been located despite considerable effort by both parties. Traditional personal service has been impossible. The issue for resolution is whether service pursuant to §
Section
Section
I find the following facts, which either have been agreed to by the parties or are found in or inferred from other sworn documents submitted in connection with this motion. Gonzalez, as mentioned above, was operating the van on July 17, 2000, at the time of the accident. At the time, Gonzalez was an employee of Millane Nurseries. He worked for Millane from November 8 to the time of the accident, with a hiatus of approximately two months in the winter. When he was hired by Millane, he was not an American citizen, but rather was a resident alien. Gonzalez apparently spoke only Spanish. On his employment form, he indicated that he had seven dependents. Another employee of Millane thought that he spoke Spanish with a Mexican accent. Millane hires a number of people from outside Connecticut.
At the time of the accident, and for sometime prior, Gonzalez lived, with some other Millane employees, probably of Mexican descent, at 90 West Street in Cromwell, Connecticut. Gonzalez did not have a Connecticut operator's license, was not a voter in Connecticut and did not own property in Connecticut. The parties do not know where he is and do not know if he is alive. Significant efforts have been made to trace Gonzalez, especially in California and Texas. It is difficult to trace people in Mexico. The social security number which he used was issued in Puerto Rico.
There has been no attack on the mechanics of service by the marshal; that is, if Gonzalez fits into the category of people included in either §
It is also clear that §
The remaining question is whether personal jurisdiction was properly obtained pursuant to §
Ordinary aids for the resolution of the issue are not very helpful. There is authority for the proposition that statutes in derogation of traditional means of obtaining personal jurisdiction, normally personal or abode service, are to be strictly construed; see, e.g., Larrivee v.McGann,
In determining this issue, I assume that the plaintiff bears the burden, by a preponderance, and I decline to give special credence to any of the affidavits in this regard simply because they are submitted on the issue of personal jurisdiction. I find the following facts, which are either facts reliably stated in the affidavits or logical inferences therefrom. Gonzalez was not a Connecticut native and had little lasting connection with the state. He was a a recent hiree who lived essentially in a rooming house. He was a resident alien, though the social security number he used had been issued in Puerto Rico. He had seven dependents in November, 1999, and none of them lived here with him (presumably had any dependents lived at 90 West Street that fact would have been presented). He did not speak English. He left his residence in Connecticut on the same day that he was involved in a very serious accident and never CT Page 249 returned to the job or to the residence, although he apparently was owed some wages. I am not considering the hearsay and somewhat speculative statements of other employees that he had left the state and similar hearsay presented in some of the affidavits. He has not been located in Connecticut, despite a search. There is a strong, though not necessarily conclusive, inference that Gonzalez has left Connecticut and is a nonresident. The inference is especially persuasive in that there is no evidence suggesting that he has remained in Connecticut, and there seem to be no ties which would hold him to Connecticut. The narrow application of the statutory language compels a finding, by a preponderance of the evidence submitted, that the "nonresident" status has been proved and §
Finally, I find no constitutional infirmity. There is no significant difference between the situation at hand and many applications of the motor vehicle statutes providing for substitute service on the commissioner, and indeed many "long-arm" provisions. As a perhaps grossly general principle, when one drives in a state one submits oneself to jurisdiction in that state, and jurisdiction is usually not avoided by later absenting oneself
The motion to dismiss is denied.
Beach, J.