Barker v. Dominic

194 A.3d 292, 330 Conn. 925
CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut
DecidedOctober 10, 2018
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 194 A.3d 292 (Barker v. Dominic) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

Related

Barker v. All Roofs by Dominic
336 Conn. 592 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
194 A.3d 292, 330 Conn. 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barker-v-dominic-conn-2018.