Share
Workers compensation laws are among the oldest protective labor statutes, dating back to the early 1900’s. Workers compensation embodies a simple tradeoff: employees may not bring personal injury lawsuits against their employers for workplace injuries, but in return there is mandatory insurance so that claims can be processed quickly with funds available for payment, and a workers compensation commission to adjudicate disputes. This tradeoff is known as the workers compensation exclusivity rule.
However, in 1994 Connecticut recognized a narrow exception to the exclusivity rule when the employer has committed an intentional tort by engaging in serious misconduct. The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded that a plaintiff employee could establish an intentional tort claim if the employee could prove that the employer actually intended to cause the injury, or had intentionally created such a dangerous condition that injury was substantially certain to occur (Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corporation). However, the Court in that case ultimately determined that the employee failed to offer sufficient evidence of a deliberate intention to harm.
Given that personal injury damages can far exceed workers compensation benefits, civil lawsuits have been filed from time to time attempting to invoke the exception to the exclusivity rule, but are rarely successful. The reason these cases do not succeed is that while injuries may result from an employer’s carelessness or negligence, the exception only applies when the employee can prove that the employer was motivated by an intention to cause harm.
In the recent case of Flick v. Bean, decided in Stamford Superior Court on November 28, 2016, the plaintiff was a clerk at a gas station convenience store who was assaulted by a customer. He claimed that working the late night shift at that particular station exposed him to a high risk of violent crime, but that the gas station owner did not install any safety or security devices, in spite of knowing of previous similar incidents. The court dismissed the complaint because the plaintiff did not allege any facts which would show that the employer held a substantially certain belief that working the night shift at that store would cause someone to be assaulted by a customer.
It seems that in all but the rarest instances, the workers compensation exclusivity rule will apply and employers will continue to be insulated from civil lawsuits for workplace injuries.
This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.
About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog
Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.