Connecticut: Worker Suffers Amputation Injury But Fails to Show Intentional Tort

A trial court was correct in finding that a plaintiff-employee had failed to establish an issue of fact in his intentional tort civil action filed against the employer following a serious injury in which the worker's leg was severed above his knee by a mechanical auger. Utilizing Connecticut's version of the "substantial certainty" rule, the appellate court agreed that the plaintiff had failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the employer had the subjective intent to create a dangerous situation knowing that there was a substantial certainty the plaintiff would be injured. The plaintiff pointed to safety meetings at which the employer's representatives had cautioned about the use of the dangerous machine. Plaintiff also noted that the employer had actually purchased a lockout system for the auger, but had failed to install it for the protection of workers. The court acknowledged the employer may not have made a wise managerial decision by failing to install the lockout devices expeditiously, but the court could not infer deception or a subjective intent to injure employees from that decision.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Hassiem v. O & G Indus., 197 Conn. App. 631, 2020 Conn. App. LEXIS 169 (June 2, 2020)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 103.04.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Sign up for the free LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation enewsletter at www.lexisnexis.com/wcnews.