Patrick v. Gosman, No. Cv95 0328323s (Dec. 13, 1996)

Connecticut Superior Court

Patrick v. Gosman, No. Cv95 0328323s (Dec. 13, 1996)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7217

CourtConnecticut Superior Court

DecidedDecember 13, 1996

DocketNo. CV95 0328323S

StatusUnpublished

This text of 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7217 (Patrick v. Gosman, No. Cv95 0328323s (Dec. 13, 1996)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Superior Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Patrick v. Gosman, No. Cv95 0328323s (Dec. 13, 1996), 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7217 (Colo. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #122 The defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's complaint is denied for the following reasons:

Plaintiff has alleged that the defendant, a third party who was not his employer, negligently caused his injuries. While the plaintiff has received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries, based upon the plaintiff's allegations, his action is still viable. See General Statutes § 31-293(a). Any claim by the defendant that he is the plaintiff's employer, and thus, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of § 31-284, should be raised by special defense. The question of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact; see DaSilva v. Danbury Publishing Co.,39 Conn. App. 653, 656-57, 666 A.2d 440 (1995); not to be resolved CT Page 7218 on a motion to strike. Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

THE COURT

MAIOCCO, J.

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

[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]ORDER RE: MOTION TO STRIKE #122 The defendant's motion to strike plaintiff's complaint is denied for the following reasons:

Plaintiff has alleged that the defendant, a third party who was not his employer, negligently caused his injuries. While the plaintiff has received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries, based upon the plaintiff's allegations, his action is still viable. See General Statutes § 31-293(a). Any claim by the defendant that he is the plaintiff's employer, and thus, that the plaintiff's claim is barred by the exclusivity provision of § 31-284, should be raised by special defense. The question of whether a person is an employee or an independent contractor is a question of fact; see DaSilva v. Danbury Publishing Co.,39 Conn. App. 653, 656-57, 666 A.2d 440 (1995); not to be resolved CT Page 7218 on a motion to strike. Accordingly, the motion to strike is denied.

THE COURT

MAIOCCO, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/patrick-v-gosman-no-cv95-0328323s-dec-13-1996-connsuperct-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack