CT Gen Stat § 52-556 (2020)
2020 Connecticut General Statutes|Title 52 - Civil Actions|Chapter 925 - Statutory Rights of Action and Defenses|Section 52-556 - Actions for injuries caused by motor vehicles owned by the state.

 Any person injured in person or property through the negligence of any state official or employee when operating a motor vehicle owned and insured by the state against personal injuries or property damage shall have a right of action against the state to recover damages for such injury.(1949 Rev., S. 8297.)Cited. 143 C. 653; 144 C. 282; 185 C. 616. Legislature did not intend statute to authorize an additional cause of action for state employees or their representatives who are eligible for workers' compensation. 189 C. 550. Cited. 239 C. 265. State's waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to section does not exempt the state from a reallocation of damages under Sec. 52-572h(g). 247 C. 256. Reiterated previous holdings that operation of motor vehicle encompasses both parking incidental to travel and movement where essential element is location of motor vehicle in travel lane. 287 C. 421. Section inapplicable where state not made a party to negligence action; court does not have authority to treat an action against a state employee as one against state. 297 C. 317. “Damages” does not include postjudgment interest, and state did not waive sovereign immunity with regard to postjudgment interest under Sec. 37-3b. Id., 798. When the state, by statute, waives its immunity to suit, the right to a jury trial cannot be implied, but instead must be affirmatively expressed; section does not expressly provide for a right to a jury trial, therefore there is no right to a jury trial brought under section. 330 C. 138.Cited. 7 CA 196; 10 CA 22; 20 CA 619. To constitute cause of action under statute, injury must result from negligent operation of motor vehicle by state employee or official. 82 CA 459. As a matter of law, state employee was “operating a motor vehicle” within the meaning of section based on facts where he left a state-owned truck running alongside of the road so he could perform required maintenance. 84 CA 535. Allegation defendant was operating a state vehicle in course of employment is insufficient ground to invoke statute as defense to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction when state was not a named party and never formally notified by plaintiff of pending action. 92 CA 158. Section authorizes suit against the state on the basis of the negligence of its employee, but not against the employee in his or her individual capacity. 154 CA 448. Trial court failed to properly instruct jury that the state may be held liable only if the state vehicle alleged to have caused the accident was being operated at the time of the accident, that a motor vehicle ordinarily is still being operated if it is parked incident to travel in a convenient or ordinarily appropriate place to park, and that the state may not be sued or held liable if the state vehicle is positioned or parked in a particular location so as to warn drivers as to the danger ahead or to serve as a protective barrier. 155 CA 462.Cited. 15 CS 251. Statute abolishes defense of governmental immunity. 18 CS 36. Defendant's motion to expunge portion of complaint alleging truck owned by state was insured denied as statute gives right of recovery only where there is such insurance. 22 CS 212.Negligence of a state official or employee must be established by a fair preponderance of all the evidence to recover damages. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct. 116.