DocketNumber: No. 369092
Citation Numbers: 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 1944, 22 Conn. L. Rptr. 553
Judges: BLUE, JUDGE. CT Page 1945
Filed Date: 8/26/1998
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
The evidence submitted by the parties shows that on December 18, 1991, the minor plaintiff, Michael Fontanella ("Michael") was injured in a motor vehicle accident. Michael claims that the accident was caused by the malfunction of the automobile that he was driving at the time (the "vehicle"). The merits of that claim are not now before me. Michael's mother, Rose Fontanella, owned the vehicle and had it insured by Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. ("Liberty"). Liberty determined that the vehicle was a total loss. On January 6, 1992, Rose sold the vehicle to Liberty for $3,210. Liberty subsequently disposed of the vehicle.
On August 10, 1994, Michael and Rose commenced the case ofFontanella v. Chrysler Corp., No. 364764 (N.H.J.D.) (the"Chrysler" case), by service of process. They allege in theChrysler case that Michael's injuries were caused by the defective and dangerous condition of the vehicle. The Chrysler case is still pending.
On December 17, 1994, the Fontanellas commenced the present case by service of process. Liberty is the sole defendant. Although the complaint is in four counts, the Fontanellas concede that judgment may enter against them on the third and fourth counts, and those counts need not be further discussed. The first and second counts are the counts in contention here. The first count alleges that Michael has been injured by Liberty's negligence in disposing of the vehicle in that his right of action in the Chrysler case has been impaired. The second count alleges that Rose has been similarly injured by the same negligence. On May 4, 1998, Llberty filed the motion for summary judgment now before me. The motion was heard on August 24, 1998. CT Page 1946
The essence of Liberty's argument is that, under the circumstances of this case, it had no duty to the Fontanellas, recognized by the law of torts, to retain the vehicle after purchasing it from Rose. The issue is squarely one of duty. "Duty is a legal conclusion about relationships between individuals, made after the fact, and imperative to a negligence cause of action. The nature of the duty, and the specific persons to whom it is owed, are to be determined by the circumstances surrounding the conduct of the individual." RK Constructors, Inc. v. FuscoCorp.,
When a party to a civil action Spoliates evidence, the problem is appropriately addressed by an adverse inference from the spoliation drawn at the eventual trial. Beers v. BaylinerMarine Corp.,
In this case, the plaintiff, Rose Fontanella, sold the vehicle to Liberty after the accident in question. The bill of sale contains no restrictions on Liberty's ability to dispose of CT Page 1947 the vehicle. Such a provision could presumably have been written in the contract, but it was not. The plaintiffs make no breach of contract claims. Under these circumstances, Liberty owned the vehicle outright and owed no duty to anyone, including the plaintiffs, not to dispose of it as Liberty saw fit.
"The jus disponendi is an incident of the ownership of property." Osage Oil Refining Co. v. Chandler,
There is no public policy that prohibits someone who has purchased an automobile from subsequently disposing of that vehicle. Moreover, even if there were to be a rule of law prohibiting a third party who owns property involved in an accident from subsequently disposing of that property, such a rule would make no sense when applied to a third party who purchases the property after the accident from the very person who claims to have been injured by the accident and who now claims that she needs the property as evidence. If the owner of the property at the time of the accident is injured as a result of the accident and wishes to preserve the property, that owner should plainly not sell the property in the first place. At a minimum, the former owner should appropriately be expected to place the desired restrictions on subsequent disposition in the contract of sale. That was not done here, and the plaintiffs are simply in no position to complain about the asserted loss that has resulted.
The law does not favor policies that restrict the jus disponendi of owners of property. The law, to the contrary, " favors the free alienation of property." 63C Am. Jur.2d Property § 35 at 103 (1997). Under the circumstances of this case, Liberty owed the plaintiffs no duty not to dispose of the vehicle as it chose.
The motion for summary judgment is granted.
BLUE, J. CT Page 1948