Rutter v. Janis

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** CASEY LEIGH RUTTER v. ADAM JANIS ET AL. NANCY BEALE, ADMINISTRATRIX (ESTATE OF LINDSEY BEALE) v. LUIS MARTINS ET AL. JASON FERREIRA v. LUIS MARTINS ET AL. (SC 20122) Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins and Vertefeuille, Js.* Syllabus Pursuant to statute (§ 14-60 (a) (3)), a motor vehicle dealer may loan a dealer license plate to a person who ‘‘has purchased a motor vehicle from such dealer, the registration of which is pending,’’ for a period of ‘‘not more than thirty days in any year,’’ and a dealer that has complied with the requirements of § 14-60 (a) is not liable for damages caused by an insured operator of the motor vehicle while the dealer license plate is displayed within that thirty day period. The plaintiffs, in three separate actions, sought to recover damages from the defendant D Co., a motor vehicle dealer, among others, for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident involving a vehicle driven by the defendant M and displaying D Co.’s dealer license plate. On May 9, 2013, at approximately 7 p.m., M executed an agreement with D Co. in connection with his purchase of the vehicle from D Co., and D Co. loaned M a dealer license plate pursuant to § 14-60 (a) while the vehicle registration process was pending. The accident occurred on June 8, 2013, at approximately 3 p.m. The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that D Co. was liable for the damages resulting from the accident because it occurred beyond the thirty day period set forth in § 14-60 (a). D Co. filed a motion for summary judgment in each action, claiming that it was not liable because the accident had occurred within the statutory thirty day period and it otherwise had complied with the requirements of the statute. In granting D Co.’s motions for summary judgment and rendering judgments thereon for D …Original document