Suarez v. Dickmont Plastics Corp.
Connecticut Supreme Court
229 Conn. 99, 639 A.2d 507 (1994)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Alfonso Suarez (plaintiff) was injured while clearing molten plastic out of a molding machine in the course of his employment with Dickmont Plastics Corporation (Dickmont) (defendant). Two fingers on Suarez’s right hand were partially amputated, resulting in permanent loss of function. Suarez sued Dickmont, alleging that Dickmont engaged in willful misconduct by (1) requiring Suarez and his coworkers, over their objections, to clean the molding machine while it was in operation; (2) refusing to let Suarez and his coworkers use safer methods for cleaning the machine; and (3) refusing to equip the machine with a protective cover to prevent workers from being injured while cleaning or operating it. Suarez stated that his foreman told him that if Suarez did not clean the machinery as directed, he would be fired. In opposition to Dickmont’s motion for summary judgment, Suarez proffered a report and affidavit of a physical engineer, Michael Shanok, who argued that Dickmont’s conduct violated accepted safety standards. Shanok opined that Dickmont’s actions crossed the line between gross negligence and reckless disregard for the safety of employees and that there was no sign of even the slightest consideration for Suarez’s safety. Shanok also stated that it was clear that an injury like Suarez’s would sooner or later be a predictable and probable event. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of Dickmont, and the appellate court affirmed. Suarez appealed, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted his petition for certification.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Katz, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Borden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.