 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Alexander v. Demmer Corporation8/20/2002
refused to do so, King testified, because Clarke believed that would take too long and the parts would have to be sent out. [453 Mich at 155-156.]
The Supreme Court determined that the defendant employer had "actual knowledge" that the press was malfunctioning, but concluded that Clarke did not have actual knowledge that an injury was "certain to occur," and that the plaintiff's sole remedy was thus under the WDCA:
Although Clarke had actual knowledge that the press was malfunctioning, he did not have knowledge that an injury was certain to occur. Plaintiff argues that because she was a novice press operator and was not informed that the press was double cycling an injury was certain to result from the malfunctioning press. It is true that concealing a known danger from an employee who has no independent knowledge of the danger may be evidence of an intent to injure. However, in this case, unlike [People v] Film Recovery Systems, [194 Ill App 3d; 550 NE2d 1090 (1990), discussed in Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1; 398 NW2d 882 (1986)], plaintiff was not required to confront a continually operating dangerous condition. The press double cycled only intermittently. Further evidence that the injury was not certain to occur is that Clarke was willing to operate the press himself. Additionally, Clarke had adjusted the machine just before assigning plaintiff to it. In the past, such adjustments would allow the press to run for at least one or two days without double cycling. Moreover, the press cycled so slowly that no one had ever been injured when the press double cycled previously. All prior operators were able to withdraw their hands in time. We find that an injury was not certain to occur because plaintiff was not required to confront a continuously operating dangerous condition.
Even assuming Clarke knew an injury was certain to occur, plaintiff is unable to prove that Clarke "willfully disregarded" that information. Although King informed Clarke the press should be broken down to be properly repaired, in Clarke's experience, adjusting the exterior of the machine allowed the machine to run without double cycling for at least one or two days. Clarke adjusted the exterior of the press, and thereafter felt comfortable operating the press himself. Unlike a situation in which an employer orders an employee to confront a continuously operating danger while concealing the danger from the employee, the evidence does not suggest that Clarke disregarded a continuously operative dangerous condition that would lead to certain injury.
In conclusion, plaintiff Travis is unable to establish that her employer possessed the specific intent to injure her. Although her employer may have negligently permitted an unsafe work environment to exist, no intentional tort was committed. Plaintiff's sole remedy should be under the WDCA. [453 Mich at 182-183 (Boyle, J.).]
As in Golec, plaintiff in the instant case proceeded under the second sentence of the intentional tort exception, under which an employer's intent to injure may be inferred if the plaintiff establishes that managerial or supervisory personnel had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge.
III.
Plaintiff alleged sufficient facts to survive summary disposition regarding whether Production Manager Tim McKenna and Plant Manager Andrew Collins, managerial employees of defendant, had the requisite "actual knowledge."
A.
There is no dispute that plaintiff was the fifth Demmer employee to be seriously injured while cleaning pinch rollers at the Delta plant, and the third to be injured on the R-1062's pinch ro
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|