 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gunter v. OTM Corp.3/26/2002
ell specifically intended to injure plaintiff. Further, there is no evidence that Burnell had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur. In determining whether something is "certain to occur," our Supreme Court has stated:
According to one court, "certain" means sure and inevitable. The legislative history requires us to interpret "certain to occur" as setting forth an extremely high standard. When an injury is "certain" to occur, no doubt exists with regard to whether it will occur. Thus, the laws of probability, which set forth the odds that something will occur, play no part in determining the certainty of injury. [Travis v Dreis & Krump Mfg Co, 453 Mich 149, 174; 551 NW2d 132 (1996).]
Knowledge that a dangerous condition exists is insufficient unless an employer is actually aware that an injury is certain to occur based upon an employee's assigned job function. Id. at 176.
Here, Burnell testified that he thought the sensor had been repaired before plaintiff's accident. Burnell also stated that he felt the machine could be operated safely without the bypassed fuse. Further, had the safety instructions on the machine been followed, the injury would not have occurred. Moreover, Burnell did not believe that such an accident was inevitable because the machine's vertical light curtains remained operational. Because the evidence does not permit a finding that Burnell had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur, the circuit court properly granted summary disposition to OTM.
Affirmed.
Peter D. O'Connell
Helene N. White
Jessica R. Cooper
|