Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc.

Connecticut Supreme Court · 2003 · Torts

TortsProducts liabilityComparative responsibilityWorkers' compensation exclusivityEvidenceDiscoveryCosts§ 52-572o

Facts

The plaintiffs, master carpenters employed by DeLuca Construction Company, were installing a roof while standing on staging attached by roof brackets manufactured by the defendants. After the brackets had been nailed to the roof and work resumed after lunch, the staging slid out from under the plaintiffs and they fell, suffering serious injuries; a deformed bracket was later found on the ground. DeLuca intervened in the action only to seek reimbursement for workers' compensation benefits it had paid. The defendants sought to apportion responsibility to DeLuca based on its alleged failure to provide fall protection and also sought to introduce certain testing-related photographs and other evidence at the retrial.

Issue

Whether, in a product liability action governed by § 52-572o, the jury may apportion responsibility to an employer that intervened only under § 31-293 to recoup workers' compensation payments despite the employer's immunity from suit under § 31-284. The appeal also asked whether the trial court abused its discretion in limiting post-remand discovery, excluding photographs for lack of foundation, denying jury access to an unadmitted demonstrative exhibit, excluding evidence that plaintiffs lacked personal fall protection, and awarding costs for both trials.

Rule

Under § 52-572o, comparative responsibility in product liability actions requires the fact finder to determine total damages without regard to plaintiff fault, reduce that amount by the claimant's percentage of responsibility, and allocate the net award among liable defendants. The term 'party' in § 52-572o does not include an employer that intervenes solely to recoup workers' compensation benefits, because the statute's apportionment, joint-and-several-liability, and contribution provisions are inconsistent with including an employer immune from tort liability under the Workers' Compensation Act. Comparative responsibility by a plaintiff turns on whether the plaintiff failed to exercise reasonable care for his own safety; on these facts, plaintiffs had no duty to anticipate a bracket defect by supplying or securing personal fall protection.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Hartford, Rosa Mendez was injured when a scaffold clamp allegedly manufactured by IronPeak Tools failed at a construction site. Rosa sued IronPeak in a Connecticut product liability action, and her employer, Elm River Builders, intervened only to recover workers' compensation benefits it had paid; IronPeak asks the court to have the jury assign some percentage of responsibility to Elm River for lax site safety rules.

Should the court permit the jury to apportion responsibility to Elm River under Connecticut's product liability comparative responsibility statute?

Explanation. The majority held that the statute's references to a "party" do not include an employer that intervenes solely under the workers' compensation reimbursement statute. Reading the product liability allocation statute as a whole, apportionment works only among parties who can be subject to joint and several liability and contribution. An employer protected by workers' compensation exclusivity cannot be liable to the employee in tort and cannot be required to contribute to a third party's payment, so the jury should not assign it a percentage of responsibility.