## Facts

- John O’Dea was injured in a collision involving a car driven by Joseph Amodeo.
- O’Dea alleged the car was maintained by Joseph’s father, Charles Amodeo, for family use and that Joseph drove with Charles’s consent and general authority.
- A Connecticut statute provided that proof the driver is the owner’s immediate family member (including a son) raises a presumption the vehicle was operated as a family car within the scope of the owner’s general authority, placing on the defendant the burden to rebut.
- At trial, the plaintiff’s evidence on family-car status and authority primarily consisted of the relationship (Joseph as Charles’s son) and the statute’s presumption.
- Charles and Joseph testified the car was not a family car maintained by Charles and that Joseph lacked consent or general authority to operate it.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff against both Joseph and Charles.

## Issues

1. Under Connecticut’s family-car presumption statute, does the presumption retain evidentiary effect after the defendant introduces contrary evidence, permitting a verdict for the plaintiff even without additional direct proof?
2. Did the trial court err in setting aside the jury’s verdict against the alleged owner where the jury could disbelieve the defendants’ rebuttal testimony?

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order setting aside the verdict as to Charles Amodeo.
- The court held the statutory presumption did not disappear upon the defendants’ introduction of contrary testimony.
- The presumption, together with the jury’s authority to reject the defendants’ credibility, provided sufficient basis to support the verdict against Charles.
- The case was remanded with direction to enter judgment on the jury’s verdict against Charles.

## Legal Principles

- A statutory presumption may have continuing evidentiary force when the statute places on the defendant the burden to rebut it; it is not necessarily extinguished by the mere introduction of contrary evidence.
- Under the family-car presumption statute, proof that the operator is an immediate family member of the owner raises a presumption of family-car operation within the scope of the owner’s general authority, and the defendant bears the burden of rebuttal.
- The jury is not required to accept defendants’ rebuttal testimony as true merely because it is uncontradicted; credibility determinations remain for the jury.
- When the presumption remains in the case, the jury may weigh it against rebuttal evidence and may find for the plaintiff if it rejects the rebuttal.

## Conclusion

The court held that Connecticut’s family-car statutory presumption remains evidence even after the defendant offers rebuttal testimony, allowing the jury to find owner liability based on the presumption and its evaluation of credibility; the verdict against the father was reinstated.


O'Dea v. Amodeo, 118 Conn. 58, 170 A. 486 (Conn. 1934)