Conti v. Rose Hill Poultry Co.
Connecticut Appellate Court
1Opinion of the CourtDaly, J.
The plaintiff instituted this action in negligence against two of his coemployees1 for their failure to provide adequate braking on their employer’s truck, which the plaintiff was driving alone at the time of the accident. The trial court granted the defendants’ *247motion for summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiff’s relief was limited to the Workers’ Compensation Act. From the refusal of the trial court to open, or to allow reargument concerning the summary judgment rendered in the defendants’ favor, the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The following factual situation does not…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Stroud v. Board of Water CommissionersSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1916
- Reetz v. MansfieldSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Dias v. AdamsSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1983
- Kegel v. McNeelyConnecticut Appellate Court · 1984
- Plunkett v. Nationwide Mutual InsuranceSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1963
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Harbel v. WintermuteWyoming Supreme Court · 1994
- Rivera v. FoxConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Kiriaka v. AlterwitzConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
- Cirillo v. SardoConnecticut Appellate Court · 1996
- Jackson v. JohnsonConnecticut Appellate Court · 1986
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.