Lavette v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.
Citations
- 213 Conn. App. 463
Syllabus
The plaintiff employee sought to recover damages from the defendant employer for personal injuries he sustained while working for the defen- dant. In his complaint, the plaintiff, whose employment duties included painting, alleged, inter alia, that, although he was initially provided a respirator by another employee to prevent excessive inhalation of toxic chemicals from the paint he used, after about one month, D, the defen- dant's safety manager, informed the plaintiff that he was not authorized to use the respirator in the workplace. The plaintiff further alleged that the defendant had deliberately instructed him to continue to paint in known dangerous conditions, the defendant was aware that his injuries were substantially certain to result from its action, and it had engaged in wilful and serious misconduct. The defendant filed a motion to strike with prejudice on the ground that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the exclusivity provision (§ 31-284) of the Workers' Compensation Act (act) (§ 31-275 et seq.), which provides that the act is the exclusive remedy for employees injured in most instances, because the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts that D was the defendant's alter ego such that the defendant could be held liable for D's tortious conduct, and, alternatively, D's actions did not constitute intentional misconduct. The trial court granted the defendant's motion to strike, concluding that the plaintiff's complaint did not state a legally sufficient cause of action that fell within the intentional tort exception to the exclusivity provision of the act. In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the plaintiff did not allege the level of control required by the instrumentality rule or the unity of ownership interest required by the identity rule to disregard the defendant's corporate structure, but merely attempted to impose liability on the defendant for the alleged intentional acts of D, as a supervisor, on the basis of her appare
Judges: Bright; Alexander; Lavine
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
20 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-03-16· cited 817×
- Jett v. DunlapSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1979-11-13· cited 156×
- Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1985-06-25· cited 152×
- Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 1997-08-05· cited 108×
- Melanson v. Town of West HartfordConnecticut Appellate Court· 2001-02-13· cited 41×
- Driscoll v. General Nutrition Corp.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2000-02-29· cited 38×
- Lucenti v. LavieroSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2018-01-18· cited 35×
- Sullivan v. Lake Compounce Theme Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2006-02-07· cited 31×
- Hersey v. Lonrho, Inc.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2002-10-15· cited 18×
- Stebbins v. Doncasters, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-04-22· cited 16×
- Mello v. Big Y Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-07-29· cited 15×
- St. Denis v. De ToledoConnecticut Appellate Court· 2005-08-09· cited 13×
- Motzer v. HaberliSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2011-04-26· cited 13×
- DeCORSO v. CALDERAROConnecticut Appellate Court· 2009-12-29· cited 11×
- Cadle Co. v. D'ADDARIOConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-09-06· cited 9×
- Jones v. Connecticut Children's Medical Center Faculty Practice PlanConnecticut Appellate Court· 2011-09-13· cited 9×
- Heyward v. Judicial Dep't of Conn.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2017-12-19· cited 8×
- AVOLETTA v. City of TorringtonConnecticut Appellate Court· 2012-01-24· cited 7×
- Mariano v. Hartland Building & Restoration Co.Connecticut Appellate Court· 2016-10-11· cited 7×
- Binkowski v. Bd. of Educ. of New HavenConnecticut Appellate Court· 2017-11-29· cited 4×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.