Preview:

****************************************************** The ``officially released'' date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ``officially released'' date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ``officially released'' date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************

RANDALL MOTZER v. EDWARD HABERLI ET AL. (SC 18649)
Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, McLachlan, Eveleigh and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued January 10--officially released April 26, 2011

Bruce A. Chaplin, for the appellant (plaintiff). Tracey Lane Russo, with whom, on the brief, was Joseph N. DeFilippo, for the appellees (defendants).

Opinion

ZARELLA, J. The plaintiff, Randall Motzer, appeals1 from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendants, Edward Haberli and E. Haberli Electric, LLC, following the trial court's decision to grant the defendants' motion for a directed verdict. In granting the motion, the trial court concluded, inter alia, that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act (act), General Statutes

Download Motzer v. Haberli.pdf

Connecticut Law