Barker v. Dominic

Supreme Court of Connecticut

Barker v. Dominic

194 A.3d 292, 330 Conn. 925

Supreme Court of Connecticut·Decided October 10, 2018·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The petition by the defendants the city of Bridgeport and PMA Insurance Company for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 183 Conn.App. 612, 193 A.3d 693 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under General Statutes § 31-291, as construed by Massolini v. Driscoll, 114 Conn. 546, 159 A. 480 (1932), the defendant city of Bridgeport was liable for workers' compensation benefits as the principal employer of a worker hired by an uninsured subcontractor to repair the roof of a building owned by the city?"

D'AURIA, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

The petition by the defendants the city of Bridgeport and PMA Insurance Company for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 183 Conn.App. 612, 193 A.3d 693 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issue:

"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that, under General Statutes § 31-291, as construed by Massolini v. Driscoll, 114 Conn. 546, 159 A. 480 (1932), the defendant city of Bridgeport was liable for workers' compensation benefits as the principal employer of a worker hired by an uninsured subcontractor to repair the roof of a building owned by the city?"

D'AURIA, J., did not participate in the consideration of or decision on this petition.

Barker v. Dominic, 194 A.3d 292, 330 Conn. 925 (Colo. 2018).

Pincite

194 A.3d 292 (Barker v. Dominic) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related