 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
SUAREZ v. DICKMONT PLASTICS CORPORATION2/18/1997
they followed his orders.
I
The principal issue in this case is whether the exclusivity bar of the Workers' Compensation Act (act); General Statutes § 31-275 et seq.; prevents the plaintiff from recovering in this action for damages against the defendant "on account of personal injury sustained by an employee. . . ." General Statutes § 31-284 (a). The definition of personal injury includes an accidental injury "causally connected" with the employment. General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (A). In Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91, 100, 491 A.2d 368 (1985), this court pointed "out that it is generally agreed that workers' compensation laws were not intended to shield an employer from common law liability for injuries he intentionally inflicted upon his employee." In deciding whether the injury was "intended," we adopted both in Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., supra, 101, and in Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 108, 639 A.2d 507 (1994), the definition set forth in the Restatement (Second) of Torts — that is, intent "denote that the actor desires to cause consequences of his act, or that he believes that the consequences are substantially certain to follow from it." 1 Restatement (Second), Torts § 8A (1965). In other words, the focus is not upon the act, but on the consequences of the act. See Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., supra, 101. In this case, as the majority points out, the jury, through its answers to special interrogatories, rejected the plaintiff's claim that the defendant's conduct was substantially certain to
produce the injury , but found that the defendant desired to cause the consequences of the incident.
A
In reversing the trial court's judgment and directing a judgment for the defendant, the majority concludes that the defendant's motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should have been granted because the plaintiff did not establish, as a matter of law, that the defendant actually intended to cause the plaintiff's injuries. With respect to the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the majority is short on its analysis and merely concludes that there was insufficient evidence.
I begin my analysis by recognizing the well settled standard for reviewing the denial of motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on evidentiary grounds. "Our review of the trial court's refusal to [grant the motions] requires us to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, according particular weight to the congruence of the judgment of the trial judge and the jury, who saw the witnesses and heard their testimony. . . . The verdict will be set aside and judgment directed only if we find that the jury could not reasonably and legally have reached their conclusion." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Mather v. Griffin Hospital, 207 Conn. 125, 130, 540 A.2d 666 (1988).
"Intent is clearly a question of fact that is ordinarily inferred from one's conduct or acts under the circumstances of the particular case. . . . Thus, whether the actor knows that the consequences of his or her conduct are certain or substantially certain to result from his or her act and still proceeds with the conduct, so that he or she should be treated by the law as though he or she in fact desired to produce the result, is a question of fact for the jury." (Citation omitted.) Suarez v. Dickmont
Plastics Corp., supra, 229 Conn. 111. Furthermore, " uestions going to intent and motive, which require the drawing of inferences from proven facts, depend for their resolution upon an assessment of demeanor and credibility that is peculiarly within
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Connecticut Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|