Employee Injury Claim Fails Despite Motor Vehicle Provision

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In a personal injury action by a state employee against a fellow state employee, an immunity statute barred the claim despite a provision in the Workers' Compensation Act that allowed motor vehicle claims against fellow employees generally.

Plaintiff state employee appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court in the Judicial District of Hartford-New Britain at New Britain (Connecticut), which held that his action to recover damages for personal injuries caused by defendant fellow employee was barred by Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165. The trial court rejected the argument that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293a allowed the suit because it was based on a motor vehicle accident.

The issue in this appeal was whether the state employee could maintain an action against his fellow employee for personal injuries caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle when both parties were acting within the scope of their employment as employees of intervenor state. The court found that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 4-165 gave immunity to state employees from personal liability for acts within the scope of employment unless the acts were wanton or willful. The court also found that Conn. Gen. Stat. § 31-293a, a provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (the Act), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 31-275 through 31-355, provided an exemption to the exclusivity provisions of the Act by allowing suits against fellow employees if the suit was based on the operation of a motor vehicle or if the wrong was wilful or malicious. The court construed the sections under the general rule that when general and specific statutes conflicted they should be harmoniously construed so that the more specific statute controlled. The court held that the specific statute that gave state employees immunity controlled over a more general statute that applied to all employees and their fellow employees.

The court held that there was no error in the trial court's judgment that dismissed an action by a state employee against his fellow employee.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained.

Source: McKinley v. Musshorn, 185 Conn. 616, 441 A.2d 600, 1981 Conn. LEXIS 638 (Conn. 1981)