Motzer v. Haberli, 300 Conn. 733

Motzer was injured while working for Haberli Electric in June 2004; the injury led to workers’ compensation benefits.
Motzer filed a two-count complaint in 2006 (amended 2008) alleging serious and willful misconduct and violations of safety regulations, plus a claim under Connecticut UPTA.
Defendants asserted workers’ compensation exclusivity; Suarez exception for intentional torts was invoked but trial court granted directed verdict for defendants.
At trial, the court excluded Guerrera’s causation testimony for lack of foundation and later found the proffered documents/testimony duplicative and cumulative.
Motzer argued the court should have allowed additional expert testimony and evidence, and that the complaint could be amended; the court denied amendments and granted directed verdict.
On appeal, the court affirmed, holding no evidence supported substantial certainty or actual intent; evidentiary rulings and amendment denial were within discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Guerrera’s caustion testimony was properly excluded	Motzer argues Guerrera should be allowed to testify on causation.	Haberli argues the expert lacked foundation to opine causation.	Exclusion proper; not based on error.
Whether excluded documents/testimony materially affected Motzer’s case	Documents would prove safety regulation violations and duties.	Evidence was cumulative or properly subject to stipulation.	Exclusion not an abuse of discretion.
Whether trial court properly granted directed verdict based on workers’ compensation exclusivity and substantial certainty	Evidence supported an intentional-tort exception to exclusivity.	Evidence failed to show substantial certainty or actual intent.	Directed verdict proper; no substantial certainty or intentional act shown.
Whether denial of third amended complaint was an abuse of discretion	Should have allowed a third amendment to state new theory.	Amendment on the trial onset was untimely and prejudicial.	No abuse; denial affirmed.

Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99 (1994) (recognizes narrow exception to exclusivity for intentional tort)
Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc., 277 Conn. 113 (2006) (substantial certainty standard for intentional torts)
Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91 (1985) (safety violations alone insufficient for substantial certainty)
Stebbins v. Doncasters, Inc., 263 Conn. 231 (2003) (violation of safety rules not necessarily intentional tort)
Sorban v. Sterling Engineering Corp., 79 Conn. App. 444 (2003) (lack of training and safety provisions insufficient for substantial certainty)
Martinez v. Southington Metal Fabricating Co., 101 Conn. App. 796 (2007) (references insufficiency of safety violations to prove substantial certainty)
Kalams v. Giacchetto, 268 Conn. 244 (2004) (excludes expert testimony that would be speculative without foundation)
Normand Josef Enterprises, Inc. v. Connecticut National Bank, 230 Conn. 486 (1994) (implicit disposal of claims when judgments render them moot)