197 Conn.App. 631
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- On December 27, 2011, Hassiem (employee) was ordered to clean a horizontal auger at O&G’s asphalt plant during annual maintenance; while cleaning he slipped and his left leg was severed by the auger.
- Hassiem received workers’ compensation benefits and sued, alleging the employer intentionally created a dangerous condition knowing injury was substantially certain (to avoid workers’ compensation exclusivity).
- Employer had acquired multiple-key lockout devices and informed employees months earlier of plans to install them, but had not installed them at the time of the accident; devices were stored in the control room.
- There were no prior similar accidents at the facility, no prior OSHA citations before the incident, and no evidence that employer disabled safety devices or intentionally violated safety rules over time.
- The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue that O&G subjectively intended to create a danger substantially certain to cause injury; Hassiem appealed.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: plaintiff failed to present evidentiary predicate to show subjective intent (substantial-certainty standard); managerial delay in installing lockout devices and lack of complaints did not establish intent or coercion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether workers’ compensation exclusivity bars the suit (substantial-certainty exception) | Employer intentionally created dangerous condition and knew injury was substantially certain | Conduct was negligent or careless but not intentional; exclusivity bars suit | Court: exclusivity applies; plaintiff failed to show employer subjectively believed injury was substantially certain; summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether failure to install acquired lockout devices equates to deliberate deceit or disabling safety devices | Failure to install devices (though possessed) was deliberate deception showing intent to injure | Delay was managerial oversight; devices were acquired and employees were told of plans to install them | Court: no evidence of deceit or affirmative disabling; mere delay/unwise management insufficient to prove subjective intent |
| Whether plaintiff was coerced/forced to clean the auger (duress analogous to Suarez) | Hassiem was coerced or feared reprisal and therefore forced to perform dangerous cleaning | No evidence of threats, prior complaints about auger, or instructions forbidding safer methods | Court: no factual predicate for coercion; plaintiff did not present evidence of being forced; summary judgment appropriate |
| Whether intent questions preclude summary judgment | Intent is a jury question, so summary judgment was premature | Even if intent is typically for jury, plaintiff must produce factual predicate; none here | Court: intent may be decided on summary judgment when no evidentiary support; plaintiff failed to raise genuine issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Lucenti v. Laviero, 327 Conn. 764 (2018) (articulates Connecticut’s subjective substantial-certainty standard and New Jersey–style multifactor conduct inquiry)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99 (1994) (recognizes narrow intentional-tort exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity)
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 242 Conn. 255 (1997) (clarifies substantial-certainty test requires proof employer actually believed injury was substantially certain)
- Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215 (1979) (early recognition of intentional-tort exception where employer directed an assault)
- Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91 (1985) (distinguishes negligence/recklessness from intentional conduct; risk short of substantial certainty insufficient)
- Stebbins v. Doncasters, Inc., 263 Conn. 231 (2003) (failure to follow warnings may show cavalier attitude but not necessarily intent under substantial-certainty standard)
- Sorban v. Sterling Engineering Corp., 79 Conn. App. 444 (2003) (failure to repair or provide guards may be negligent or reckless but generally does not meet substantial-certainty threshold)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986) (summary judgment standard: nonmovant must present evidentiary facts to raise genuine issue)