Summary
In Alexander, the plaintiff was injured while cleaning pinch rollers when there had been four prior injuries from the rollers.
Summary of this case from House v. JohnsonOpinion
No. 122291.
April 30, 2003.
COA: 230417, Eaton CC: 99-000907-NZ
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal from the August 20, 2002 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the order of the Court of Appeals. In order to recover under the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy rule of the Workers' Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.131(1), which requires that the employer must have "specifically intended an injury," a plaintiff must show that her employer had "actual knowledge" that an injury was "certain to occur" and "wilfully disregarded" that knowledge. See also Travis v. Dreis Krump Mfg Co, 453 Mich. 149, 173-179 (Boyle, J.) (1996); Palazzola v. Karmazine Products, 223 Mich. App. 141, 148-150 (1997). An incident "certain to occur" cannot be established by reliance on the laws of probability, the mere occurrence of a similar event, or conclusory statements of experts. Travis, supra, at 174-175; Palazzola, supra, at 149-150. Rather, it must be sure and inevitable. Travis, supra at 174. A continuously operative dangerous condition may form the basis of a claim under the intentional tort exception only if the employer knows the condition will cause an injury and refrains from informing the employee about it. Id. at 178.
Cavanagh and Kelly, JJ., would deny leave to appeal.