Share This Article:
![yes 941500 640](https://www.workerscompensation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/yes-941500_640.jpg)
If you chose B, you sided with the court in Basset v. Town of East Haven., No. AC 45106 (Conn. App. Ct. 06/26/22), which held that lighting the device was outside the course of employment.
The court pointed out that while cleaning up debris was within the scope of the supervisor’s job duties, there was no evidence that lighting the wick was. “[T]here was no evidence presented to the commissioner that program workers ever set fire to debris in order to dispose of it,” the court wrote.
The court affirmed the commissioner’s finding that the moment the supervisor lit the device, the chain of causation was broken. When that happened, the lighting of the device, not the supervisor’s employment, became the proximate cause of his injuries.
The court also found no reason to question the commissioner’s finding that the supervisor’s claim that he was trying to protect his underlings was not believable.
More by This Author
- Jul 19, 2024
- Chris Parker
- Jul 14, 2024
- Chris Parker
Read More
- Jul 01, 2024
- Frank Ferreri
- Oct 19, 2023
- Bill Zachry
- Oct 12, 2023
- Liz Carey
- Sep 28, 2023
- F.J. Thomas
- Sep 28, 2023
- WorkersCompensation.com
- Sep 15, 2023
- Chris Parker