Worker’s Compensation Exclusivity

The motor vehicle exception to the worker’s compensation exclusivity provision did not apply to a police officer’s negligence action against a fellow officer, according to a Connecticut Appellate Court opinion to be officially released on February 2, 2016.

The facts in Rodriguez v. Clark are a little unusual. Officer Rodriguez was breaking up a physical alternation and getting the participants under control. Officer Clark, and his K-9 partner, Niko, arrived as backup as did other officers. Officer Clark put his police cruiser in park, got out, and closed the door. He left the engine running. Apparently, Niko’s services weren’t immediately necessary, so Clark left him in the car with the window open (it was July).  Niko, however, didn’t know his services were unnecessary. He left the cruiser through the open window and got involved in the fracas. Unfortunately, he went after the wrong guys. He severely injured Rodriguez’ leg and nipped one of the other officers as well.

Rodriguez sued Clark in negligence and under the dog bite statute. Mrs. Rodriguez brought corresponding loss of consortium claims against Clark.

Clark moved to strike the complaint based on the worker’s compensation exclusivity provision. The Rodriguez’ claimed that they were within the exception to the exclusivity provision for “action[s] … based on the fellow employee’s negligence in the operation of a motor vehicle.” The trial court disagreed and struck the complaint.

Arguments on Appeal

No surprise here. The Rodriguez’ argued that the worker’s compensation exclusivity provision did not bar the action.

Appellate Court’s Conclusions

The Appellate Court affirmed, adopting the trial court’s memorandum of decision on the motion to strike. The trial court essentially concluded that Clark was not “operating a motor vehicle” when he left Niko in his parked cruiser with the window open.

Impact

The trial court distinguished this case from several cases where the motor vehicle exception applied to a parked vehicle that was not being driven at the time of the injury. Now we have an example of an injury too far removed from the parking to qualify for the exception.

About the Photo

Case is about police officers and a police car.