Bartolotta v. United States
| Decision Date | 02 November 1967 |
| Docket Number | 10170,Civ. No. 10169,10515. |
| Parties | Salvatore J. BARTOLOTTA, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES of America and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendants. Robert PETTERSEN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY and United States of America, Defendants. Lucian BOUTIN, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Edward Smith, Hartford, Conn., for plaintiffs Bartolotta and Pettersen.
Samuel Gruber, of Gruber & Turkel, Stamford, Conn., for plaintiff Boutin.
William J. Doyle and Frank E. Callahan, of Wiggin & Dana, New Haven, Conn., for defendant Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
Motions by defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Liberty Mutual), pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), Fed.R.Civ.P., for dismissal of the complaints in each of the instant actions for failure to state claims upon which relief can be granted, present the following identical questions in each action:
The Court, viewing the complaints in each of the actions in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, holds that the first question must be answered in the negative. Therefore, Liberty Mutual's motions for dismissal of the complaints as against it are granted.
Having thus ruled upon the first question in the negative, the Court has decided all that it is required to decide. Nevertheless, if it were necessary to rule on the second question, the Court also would answer this question in the negative.
Accordingly, the Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
(1) Plaintiffs Robert Pettersen, Salvatore J. Bartolotta, and Lucian Boutin are citizens of the State of Connecticut. Defendant Liberty Mutual, being a Massachusetts corporation and having its principal place of business in that state, is a citizen of Massachusetts.
(2) The amount in controversy in each action exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
(3) Plaintiffs in each action sustained personal injuries arising out of and in the course of their employment. Plaintiffs Pettersen and Bartolotta were overcome by argon gas upon entering a cylindrical chamber, commonly referred to as the "moon room", which was maintained by their employer, Pratt & Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation, and used for the purpose of treating metals at high temperatures. Plaintiff Boutin's hand was crushed in a horn press maintained by his employer, Landers, Frary & Clark.
(4) At the time of each of the above incidents, Liberty Mutual was the compensation insurance carrier of each of plaintiffs' employers under the Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act, Conn. Gen.Stat., ch. 568, § 31-275, et seq. (1958), as amended.
(5) Liberty Mutual reserved the right in each of the contracts of insurance with plaintiffs' employers to make safety inspections of the employers' plants and equipment, and to recommend and require the employers to eliminate unsafe conditions.
(6) From time to time, Liberty Mutual made safety inspections of the employers' plants and equipment, and recommended and required safety changes.
(7) Liberty Mutual failed to inspect the "moon room" of Pratt & Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation for any safety defects, nor did it notify Pratt & Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation concerning any safety defects in the "moon room" or recommend or require any changes relating to the safety thereof.
(8) Liberty Mutual failed to inspect the horn press of Landers, Frary & Clark on which plaintiff Boutin was injured so as to detect any safety defect in that machine, nor did it require Landers, Frary & Clark to make any safety changes on the machine.
(1) Jurisdiction in the instant actions is founded on diversity of citizenship and requisite jurisdictional amount.1
(2) Where a party sustains personal injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment, the Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act, Conn.Gen. Stat., ch. 568, § 31-284 (1958), deprives that party of his common law right of action against his employer, but Section 31-293 of the Act preserves his right of action against third persons.
(3) The workmen's compensation insurance carrier of an employer is not a third person within the contemplation of the Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act, Conn.Gen.Stat., ch. 568, § 31-293 (1958), under the circumstances in the instant actions; rather, a workmen's compensation insurance carrier has the same immunity to common law actions as that of its insured pursuant to Section 31-284 of the Act.
(4) Since the complaints in each of the instant actions allege a common law right to recover from a workmen's compensation insurance carrier for personal injuries sustained by plaintiffs arising out of and in the course of employment by the carrier's insured, Liberty Mutual is entitled to dismissal of the complaints as against it in each of the actions.
The following conclusions, (5) and (6), although not necessary to a decision in this case in view of the conclusions stated above, nevertheless are set forth since the issues have been raised by the parties.
(5) Under the law of the State of Connecticut, where a party voluntarily undertakes to do an act which if properly done could have prevented personal injury to another, that party is not liable for such injury if his undertaking neither was relied on by the injured party nor increased the danger to which the injured party was exposed.
(6) Since the complaints in each of the instant actions merely allege that Liberty Mutual reserved the right in its insurance contracts to make safety inspections and recommend and require safety changes, and that Liberty Mutual failed properly to inspect the equipment which caused plaintiffs' injuries and failed to recommend and require safety changes, the Court, if it were necessary to reach this issue, would dismiss the complaints as against Liberty Mutual in each of the instant actions for failure to allege facts sufficient to hold Liberty Mutual liable to plaintiffs. The complaints are wholly devoid of any allegations that Liberty Mutual's actions in any way increased the danger to which plaintiffs were exposed or were relied on in any way by plaintiffs.
OPINIONThis Court has jurisdiction in each of the instant actions based on diversity of citizenship and requisite jurisdictional amount.2 Plaintiffs are citizens of Connecticut; defendant Liberty Mutual, being a Massachusetts corporation and having its principal place of business in Massachusetts, is a citizen of that state.
The amount in controversy in each action exceeds $10,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
In each action plaintiff was injured in the course of employment. Plaintiffs Pettersen and Bartolotta were overcome by argon gas upon entering a cylindrical chamber, commonly referred to as the "moon room", which was maintained by their employer, Pratt and Whitney Division of United Aircraft Corporation, and used for the purpose of treating metals at high temperatures. Plaintiff Boutin's hand was crushed in a horn press maintained by his employer, Landers, Frary & Clark. In each instance, at the time of the injury, defendant Liberty Mutual was the compensation insurance carrier for the employer under the provisions of the Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act (the Act).3
Plaintiffs in these actions are not suing Liberty Mutual to collect the sums due them under the Act. Their right to these sums appears undisputed. Rather, they are suing Liberty Mutual on the ground that its negligence was responsible for their injuries. Plaintiffs allege that Liberty Mutual reserved the right in its insurance contracts to make safety inspections of the employers' plants and equipment, and that Liberty Mutual from time to time made such inspections and recommended and required corrective changes in the plants and equipment. It is plaintiffs' contention that Liberty Mutual made its safety inspections in a negligent manner so that Liberty Mutual permitted dangerous conditions to continue to exist until they resulted in injury to plaintiffs.
The Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act,4 like workmen's compensation acts in other states, deprives covered employees of the right to sue their employers for common law negligence5 while guaranteeing them certain statutory sums from their employers in case of personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment.6 In effect, the Connecticut Act, and similar acts of other states, limits the amounts recoverable to lesser sums than an employee might recover at common law, but makes such amounts payable in every instance of work-connected injury, rather than in just those instances where an employee can prove breach of a common law duty.7 But the Connecticut Act, and similar acts of other states, does not limit common law rights of action against "third persons."8 Thus, if an employee is hurt while on the job through the negligent action of a third person, although the employee can still collect the statutory amount available under the Connecticut Act from his employer, he may, nevertheless, sue the third person for common law tort and collect perhaps a much larger amount. It is just this course that plaintiffs in these actions are attempting to pursue. They are suing Liberty Mutual as a third party allegedly liable to them for common law tort.
Liberty Mutual argues in support of its motions to dismiss these actions that, as the compensation carrier of plaintiffs' employers, it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cline v. Avery Abrasives, Inc.
...may be held liable to an employee.2 See, e. g., Johnson v. American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co., 559 F.2d 382 (C.C.A. 5th); Bartolotta v. United States, 276 F.Supp. 66 (D.Conn.); Bartolotta v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 431 F.2d 115 (C.C.A. 2d); Barrette v. Travelers Ins. Co., 28 Conn.Sup. 1, 246 A.2d ......
-
Enquist v. General Datacom
...a common law tort theory of recovery, and which are unobtainable under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act). See Bartolotta v. United States, 276 F.Supp. 66, 70 (D.Conn.1967), aff'd, 411 F.2d 115 (2d Cir.1969). An award under the Act ordinarily compensates an employee for the impairment to h......
-
Matthews v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...Act). Hill v. United States Fid. & Guar. Co., 272 F.Supp. 569 (M.D.Fla.) (Florida Workmen's Compensation Act). Bartolotta v. United States, 276 F.Supp. 66, 70--74 (D.Conn.) (Connecticut Workmen's Compensation Act). Flood v. Merchants Mut. Ins. Co. 230 Md. 373, 376--379, 187 A.2d 320 (Maryla......
-
Smith v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...Va. Code Ann. § 65-3 (1950); and Wisconsin Wis.Stat.Ann. §§ 102.03(2) and 102.29(1) (1973) and § 895.44 (1966). 5 See Bartolotta v. U. S., 276 F.Supp. 66 (D.Conn.1967); Donohue v. Maryland Casualty Co., 363 F.2d 442 (4th Cir. 1966), aff'g. for reasons in opinion below 248 F.Supp. 588 (D.Md.......