Jett v. Dunlap
| Citation | 179 Conn. 215,425 A.2d 1263 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 13 November 1979 |
| Parties | James JETT v. Lester F. DUNLAP et al. |
John J. Buckley, New Haven, for appellant (plaintiff).
Edward J. Holahan, Jr., Bridgeport, with whom, on brief, was Bruce M. Killion, Bridgeport, for appellee (defendant Farrel Corp.).
Before COTTER, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, PETERS and HEALEY, JJ.
The plaintiff instituted this action against his work supervisor, Lester F. Dunlap and their employer, Farrel Corporation, to recover damages in common-law tort for an alleged battery which occurred at the workplace.
The plaintiff alleged that Dunlap accused him in a profane and insulting manner of being away from his machine. When he responded to Dunlap in a similar manner, Dunlap struck him, pushing him backwards and knocking off his hat. The plaintiff sued Dunlap and the Farrel Corporation, under a theory of respondeat superior, for the ensuing depression, disruption of his home life and humiliation among his fellow employees who harassed him for his failure to strike back.
The defendant Farrel Corporation demurred on the ground that General Statutes § 31-284(a), a provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act, abolished the common-law cause of action asserted by the plaintiff. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer and rendered judgment for the defendant Farrel Corporation only. The plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff assigns as error the trial court's determination that the plaintiff's remedies against the defendant corporation are limited to those provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act. The applicable portions of § 31-284(a) provide: 1 The purpose of the workmen's compensation statute is to compensate the worker for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault, by imposing a form of strict liability on the employer. Klapproth v. Turner, 156 Conn. 276, 279, 240 A.2d 886 (1968).
In previous decisions under the Workmen's Compensation Act we have consistently held that where a worker's personal injury is covered by the act, statutory compensation is the sole remedy and recovery in common-law tort against the employer is barred. Mancini v. Bureau of Public Works, 167 Conn. 189, 193, 355 A.2d 32 (1974); Crisanti v. Cremo Brewing Co., 136 Conn. 529, 531, 72 A.2d 655 (1950); Hoard v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 122 Conn. 185, 188, 188 A. 269 (1936); see also Grogan v. New Britain, 175 Conn. 174, 181, 397 A.2d 97 (1978). This well-established principle is not eroded when the plaintiff alleges an intentional tort by his supervisor.
The plaintiff contends that since the defendant Dunlap was trying to further the business of his master, Farrel Corporation, at the time he committed the battery, the defendant corporation is subject to common-law tort liability for Dunlap's acts. An intentional tort committed upon one employee by another, which causes personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, is covered by the compensatory provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Willis v. Taylor & Fenn Co., 137 Conn. 626, 627-28, 79 A.2d 821 (1951); 82 Am.Jur.2d, Workmen's Compensation § 330. Unless the defendant employer intentionally directed or authorized Dunlap to strike the plaintiff, the employer has a right to view the incident as an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, another "industrial mishap in the factory, of the sort he has a right to consider exclusively covered by the compensation system." 2A Larson, Workmen's Compensation (1976) § 68.21, p. 13-11.
There is a distinction between an assault directly committed or authorized by the employer and an assault committed by a supervisory employee. Moreover there are strong arguments against entertaining a common-law tort action against an employer for a supervisory employee's intentional assault. The first is that to allow such suits would mean that 2A Larson, op. cit. § 68.21, p. 13-13. Furthermore, the righteous indignation one feels when one employee deliberately injures another is inadequate justification for awarding a common-law tort remedy against an innocent employer.
The correct distinction to be drawn in this case is between a supervisory employee and a person who can be characterized as the alter ego of the corporation. If the assailant is of such rank in the corporation that he may be deemed the alter ego of the corporation under the standards governing disregard of the corporate entity, then attribution of corporate responsibility for the actor's conduct is appropriate. It is inappropriate where the actor is merely a foreman or supervisor. 2A Larson, op. cit. §§ 68.21-68.22. Courts in other jurisdictions have adopted this distinction. Heskett v. Fisher Laundry & Cleaners Co., Inc., 217 Ark. 350, 355-56, 230 S.W.2d 28 (1950); Boek v. Wong Hing, 180 Minn. 470, 471-72, 231 N.W. 233 (1930); Thompson v. Jones Construction Co., 199 S.C. 304, 310, 19 S.E.2d 226 (1942); Garcia v. Gusmack Restaurant Corporation, 150 N.Y.S.2d 232, 234 (City Ct.N.Y., 1954). The distinction is based on identification, not agency. If the assailant can be identified as the alter ego of the corporation, or the corporation has directed or authorized the assault, then the corporation may be liable in common-law tort; if the assailant is only another employee who cannot be so identified, then the strict liability remedies provided by the Workmen's Compensation Act are exclusive and cannot be supplemented with common-law damages.
The pleadings do not indicate that the employer directed or authorized the assault or that the assailant was of such a status in the defendant's organization as to be characterized as the alter ego of the corporation. The plaintiff, however, did plead that the acts of the supervisor were subsequently "condoned" by the employer. Although we assume this pleading to be true, such condoning is not an intentional tort on the part of the employer and does not relate back to make it such. In Bakker v. Baza'r, Inc., 275 Or. 245, 253-54, 551 P.2d 1269 (1976), it was held that Oregon's statutory exception to the Workmen's Compensation Act, which permits a worker to sue the employer in common-law tort for an intentional injury, did not encompass an employer's ratification of another employee's intentional tort because the plaintiff's injury, if any, did not result from the subsequent ratification but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dinino v. Fed. Express Corp.
...14–1." (Emphasis added.)The second exception at issue in this case is the "substantial certainty" exception. In Jett v. Dunlap , 179 Conn. 215, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979), our Supreme Court recognized an exception to the exclusivity provision for intentional torts of an employer. Id., at 219, 425......
-
Lucenti v. Laviero
...A.2d 507.This court first recognized this narrow intentional tort exception to workers' compensation exclusivity in Jett v. Dunlap , 179 Conn. 215, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979). See Suarez I , supra, 229 Conn. at 106–107, 639 A.2d 507. In Jett , this court exempted from workers' compensation exclus......
-
Claps v. Moliterno Stone Sales, Inc.
...`another industrial mishap in the factory'" of the sort exclusively covered by the workers' compensation system. See Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215, 218, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979). The Connecticut Supreme Court has held, however, that an employer is liable for intentional torts committed by an em......
-
Design Kitchen and Baths v. Lagos
...on the employer'[]; (emphasis added) Panaro v. Electrolux Corp., 208 Conn. 589, 598-99, 545 A.2d 1086 (1988); Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215, 217, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979); an award of such benefits reasonably cannot be described as a `sanction.'" 712 A.2d at 403. As to the implied preemption ar......
-
Workers' Compensation Developments 2010-2012
...Act, as it was then known, was enacted in 1913 and took effect in 1914. Conn. P.A. 1913 c. 138. 2. The seminal case is Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979), which created an exception for intentional torts committed by a supervisor. The case of Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Cor......
-
Labor Relations and Employment Law: 1997 Developments in Connecticut
...31-349 transfer medical issues and created a procedure for using the panel. 133.242 Conn. 255, 698 A.2d 838 (1997) ("Surarez II"). 134.179 Conn. 215, 217, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979). 135.See Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp., 229 Conn. 99, 639 A.2d 507 (1994) (Suarez 1). 136.Suarez II, at 257-258......
-
Labor Relations and Employment Law: Developments in Connecticut in 1992
...provisions of this chapter." 29. CONN. GEN. STAT. 42-110a, et seq. 30. CONN. GEN. STAT. 38a-815, et seq. 31. See, e.g., Jett v. Dunlap, 179 Conn. 215, 425 A.2d 1263 (1979); Mingachos v. CBS, Inc., 196 Conn. 91, 491 A.2d 368 (1985). 32. 28 Conn. App. at 668, 613 A.2d at 843. 33 .128 Conn. Ap......