 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Kopp v. Zigich9/22/2005
t because plaintiff may not have been sufficiently aware that pet feces is a potential hazard. Further, the WDCA recognizes the employer's responsibility for its employee's work-related injuries, regardless of fault. Herbolsheimer v SMS Holding Co, Inc, 239 Mich App 236, 240; 608 NW2d 487 (2000); MCL 418.301. Thus, MSPS could be a proper non-party at fault even though MSPS, as plaintiff's employer, could not be sued for negligence in its training or failure to properly train plaintiff because of the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA.
Accordingly, defendants may argue to the jury that MSPS may be at fault for plaintiff's injuries, and the jury must assess the fault of the parties and the potential non-party at fault in accordance with MCL 600.2957 and MCL 600.6304.
We reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
Jane E. Markey, Kathleen Jansen, William C. Whitbeck.
|