Opinion
Docket No. 148373. COA No. 310755.
2014-06-18
Naum THOMAI and Zhulieta Thomai, Plaintiffs–Appellees, v. MIBA HYDRAMECHANICA CORPORATION and Corporations X and Y, Defendants–Appellants.
Prior report: 303 Mich.App. 196, 842 N.W.2d 417.
Order
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 14, 2013 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals and REINSTATE the Macomb Circuit Court's May 24, 2012 judgment for the defendants. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting discovery where the plaintiffs had seven months of unfettered discovery and, in lieu of granting summary disposition to the defendants, the trial court permitted additional discovery limited to evidence that would support a prima facie case under the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the worker's disability compensation act, MCL 418.131(1). Nor did the trial court err in its understanding of the legal elements of the intentional tort exception. There is simply no evidence in the record to establish that the defendants wilfully disregarded knowledge that an injury was certain to occur to the plaintiff from his operation of the grooving machine.