*********************************************** 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. *********************************************** DILA HASSIEM v. O & G INDUSTRIES, INC. (AC 41794) Lavine, Bright and Devlin, Js. Syllabus The plaintiff employee sought to recover damages from the defendant employer for personal injuries he sustained at work while cleaning equipment that allegedly resulted from the defendant’s having intention- ally created a dangerous condition that it knew with substantial certainty would result in injury to the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defen- dant’s motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by the exclusivity provision (§ 31-284 (a)) of the Workers’ Compensation Act because the plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact to show that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct that it knew with substantial certainty would result in injury to him. The court determined, inter alia, that there was no information that the defendant’s failure, prior to the plaintiff’s injury, to install a lockout device it had previously required that would have activated and controlled the equip- ment was intentional or would cause injury. The court also determined that, in the months prior to the plaintiff’s injury, the defendant had discussed with the plaintiff and other employees changes it was making for safety and other operational procedures, and that there was no evidence of a failure to follow safety regulations before the plaintiff’s injury or that the defendant had disabled or changed any of its devices for any improper reason. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly granted the defendant’s motion for sum- mary judgment because questions as to intent are to be decided by the trier of fact, and the defendant coerced him into cleaning the equipment and was deliberately deceptive in having failed to install the lockout device when it knew that the device was required to be used. Held that the …Original document

This content is restricted to site members only. If you are an existing user, please log in to "My Account". New users may register here 

Existing Users Log In
   
New User Registration
*Required field