Franco

Plaintiff appeals from a summary judgment in an action for personal injuries. We affirm.

The sole issue now before us is whether plaintiff’s claim against defendant (his employer) is barred by the “exclusivity” provision of the worker’s compensation law, or whether his action at law is permissible under the so-called “dual capacity” exception to that rule. The trial court held that the worker’s compensation remedy was exclusive. Plaintiff has appealed; we affirm.

The facts, as disclosed by the documents submitted on defendant’s motion for summary judgment, are as follows:

Plaintiff was employed by defendant as a “ripsaw” operator. While engaged in that occupation, a piece of lumber “kicked back” from the saw, injuring plaintiff. The complaint alleges, against the manufacturer of the saw, a defective product; as against respondent, the employer, it is alleged that the piece of wood with which plaintiff was working was defective in a manner causing the “kickback. ” The piece of wood was a planed oak plank, purchased by defendant from another dealer, whose identity cannot now be ascertained because defendant buys such boards from several suppliers and this particular…