Williams v. STATE, JUDICIAL BRANCH
124 Conn. App. 759
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2010Background
- Williams, a juvenile transportation officer, sought workers' compensation for back, neck, wrist, rib and knee injuries from an on-duty incident at Hartford Juvenile Detention Center.
- On May 6, 2005, during a basketball game with seven detainees, Williams engaged a detainee and used force, allegedly resulting in the injuries claimed.
- Defendant challenged eligibility, arguing Williams's injuries arose from wilful and serious misconduct under § 31-284(a).
- The commissioner ruled on June 11, 2008 in favor of the defendant, finding Williams engaged in wilful and serious misconduct and dismissed the claim.
- The board affirmed the commissioner’s ruling; Williams appealed to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
- Key evidentiary dispute: whether the second gym surveillance camera footage, not preserved, warranted an adverse inference against the defendant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether his conduct constituted wilful and serious misconduct | Williams contends the record does not prove grave misconduct. | State argues Williams used improper restraint—unnecessary force—constituting wilful and serious misconduct. | Yes; evidence supports wilful and serious misconduct. |
| Whether the failure to preserve second-camera footage warranted an adverse inference | Spoliation by the state justifies an adverse inference against it. | Discretion to draw adverse inferences rests with the commissioner; footage was unlikely to be probative, and witness credibility controls. | No; the commissioner did not abuse discretion in declining an adverse inference. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gonier v. Chase Cos., 97 Conn. 46 (1921) (wilful vs. serious misconduct defined; grave character required)
- Mancini v. Scovill Mfg. Co., 98 Conn. 591 (1923) (serious misconduct requires grave and aggravated conduct)
- Paternostro v. Arborio Corp., 56 Conn.App. 215 (1999) (commissioner credibility; appellate review of weight of evidence)
- Beers v. Bayliner Marine Corp., 236 Conn. 769 (1996) (spoliation inference permissive when evidence destroyed intentionally)
- Rizzuto v. Davidson Ladders, Inc., 280 Conn. 225 (2006) (adverse-inference framework for spoliation evidence; permissive, not mandatory)
- Surrells v. Belinkie, 95 Conn.App. 764 (2006) (commissioner discretion in adverse-inference determinations)
- Keenan v. Union Camp Corp., 49 Conn.App. 280 (1998) (credibility determinations within commissioner’s prerogative)