 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorban v. Sterling Engineering Corp.9/16/2003
The plaintiff employee, Emil Sorban, appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant employer, Sterling Engineering Corporation. The plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that (1) the substantial certainty exception to the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-275 et seq., is equivalent to inevitability and (2) there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the defendant's alleged intentional actions created a situation in which the plaintiff's injuries were substantially certain to occur. We agree with the plaintiff that the court improperly concluded that the substantial certainty standard is equivalent to inevitability, but determine nevertheless that there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, gathered from deposition testimony, affidavits and the procedural history, are necessary for our resolution of the plaintiff's appeal. On March 12, 1997, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a machine operator. He had worked for the defendant for nine years. The plaintiff was assigned to work on a vertical turret lathe, which required the operator to place a large circular piece of material on a rotating table. The operator would position the cutting tool (tool head) that was attached to an arm over the rotating table, and then cut the material.
The plaintiff noticed that the lathe was malfunctioning; specifically, the cutting tool was not stopping in the proper position. Instead, the tool head drifted toward the material located on the rotating table. The plaintiff alerted his supervisor to the problem and, after inspecting the machine, the supervisor told the plaintiff to "be careful." The plaintiff turned on the rotating table and then attempted to position the arm. After turning the switch that would allow him to position the arm and tool head, the plaintiff heard a click and was unable to complete the task. He attempted unsuccessfully to position the tool head a second time. During his third attempt, the tool head crashed into the material located on the rotating table. As a result, a piece of material was thrown from the machine, broke though a safety shield guard and struck the plaintiff's arm, causing a severe laceration and other injuries.
The plaintiff's complaint, dated March 23, 1999, alleged, inter alia, that the defendant knew that its employees operated the lathe without proper shield guards, that there were insufficient butt blocks to secure the material to the rotating table, and that the tool head traveled too far and would strike materials on the rotating table. The plaintiff alleges that those conditions caused the materials to be thrown at the operator. Thus, the plaintiff contends that the defendant "intentionally required, caused, allowed, and permitted its employees ... todowork in which it was substantially certain that employees including [the plaintiff] would get struck by thrown rotating parts and be severely injured."
The defendant, pursuant to Practice Book § 17-44 et seq., filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis of its special defense that the plaintiff's cause of action was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the act, General Statutes § 31-284 (a). The court granted the defendant's motion, and this appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
I.
The plaintiff first claims that the court improperly concluded that the substantial certainty standard is equivalent to inevitability. Specifically, he argues th
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|