 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Rutherford12/13/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the circuit court's order granting defendants' motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), based on the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker 's Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.131(1), and denying her motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.
Plaintiff was employed by defendant, AARMCO, Inc., as a security guard. In order to be eligible for incentive pay, plaintiff attended a series of training sessions taught by AARMCO's president and sole shareholder, defendant Rutherford. One of the training sessions covered self- defense tactics. Plaintiff was called as a volunteer to assist Rutherford in demonstrating a "sternal thrust." A sternal thrust is performed by placing one's palm on another's sternum and "snapping" the hand against the base of the sternum. This self-defense tactic causes part of the sternum to touch the heart, leading to involuntary exhalation and momentary stunning.
Rutherford had taught the sternal thrust technique to his security guards hundreds of times over a seventeen-year period. Never before had a person been injured when he performed the sternal thrust on a student for demonstration. When Rutherford performed the sternal thrust upon plaintiff, however, plaintiff fell over backwards and hit her head on the wall. Plaintiff broke two vertebrae, requiring surgery, hospitalization, and physical therapy.
Plaintiff pursued claims of assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress against defendants. Upon the close of discovery, defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that plaintiff's claims were barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA. Plaintiff also filed a motion for summary disposition claiming that her proofs conclusively established that defendants committed assault and battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The circuit court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition and denied plaintiff's motion for summary disposition.
On appeal, a trial court's grant of summary disposition will be reviewed de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). "When a motion for summary disposition is premised on MCR 2.116(C)(7), the non-movant's well-pleaded allegations must be accepted as true and construed in the non-movant's favor and the motion should not be granted unless no factual development could provide a basis for recovery." Id. "If the pleadings demonstrate that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or if affidavits or other documentary evidence show that there is no genuine issue of material fact, the trial court must render judgment without delay." Harris v Allen Park, 193 Mich App 103, 106; 483 NW2d 434 (1992).
The intentional tort exception to the WDCA provides
The right to recovery of benefits as provided in this act shall be the employee's exclusive remedy against the employer for a personal injury or occupational disease. The only exception to this exclusive remedy provision is an intentional tort. An intentional tort shall exist only when an employee is injured as a result of a deliberate act of the employer and the employer specifically intended an injury. An employer shall be deemed to have intended to injure if the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. The issue of whether an act was an intentional tort shall be a question of law for the court. [MCL 418.131(1).]
The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff can escape the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA in two ways. One, a plainti
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|