Hassiem v. O and G Industries, Inc.

Excerpt

The plaintiff employee sought to recover damages from the defendant employer for personal injuries he sustained at work while cleaning equipment that allegedly resulted from the defendant's having intention- ally created a dangerous condition that it knew with substantial certainty would result in injury to the plaintiff. The trial court granted the defen- dant's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment for the defendant. The court concluded that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the exclusivity provision (§ 31-284 (a)) of the Workers' Compensation Act because the plaintiff failed to present a genuine issue of material fact to show that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct that it knew with substantial certainty would result in injury to him. The court determined, inter alia, that there was no information that the defendant's failure, prior to the plaintiff's injury, to install a lockout device it had previously required that would have activated and controlled the equip- ment was intentional or would cause injury. The court also determined that, in the months prior to the plaintiff's injury, the defendant had discussed with the plaintiff and other employees changes it was making for safety and other operational procedures, and that there was no evidence of a failure to follow safety regulations before the plaintiff's injury or that the defendant had disabled or changed any of its devices for any improper reason. On appeal to this court, the plaintiff claimed that the trial court improperly granted the defendant's motion for sum- mary judgment because questions as to intent are to be decided by the trier of fact, and the defendant coerced him into cleaning the equipment and was deliberately deceptive in having failed to install the lockout device when it knew that the device was required to be used. Held that the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff having failed to show that there was a genuine i