D John Doe v. General Motors LLC, 355097

Plaintiffs John Doe and Jane Doe sued General Motors, LLC after an employee injury involving storage/safety blocks in die presses; the trial court granted summary disposition for defendant and this opinion is a dissent arguing that was error.
Employees allegedly used safety/storage blocks inside die presses despite employer instructions forbidding them; employees were disciplined when they used the blocks.
Plaintiffs produced evidence that such blocks were ejected from presses roughly 5–10 times over years (likely undercounted); no other serious injuries were reported.
Plant manager Jim Scrimiger insisted on using the safety blocks despite Safety Committee objections, suggesting managerial awareness and decision-making in favor of continued use.
The dissent applies the WDCA intentional-tort exception standard: an intentional tort requires that the employer had actual knowledge an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge; the dissent finds genuine factual disputes and that summary disposition before discovery was premature.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary disposition was premature under MCR 2.116(C)(7)	Summary disposition was premature because disputed facts remain and further discovery is likely to uncover evidence supporting the intentional-tort claim	Facts are insufficient to invoke the intentional-tort exception and no further discovery should change that	Dissent: summary disposition was premature; vacate and remand for discovery
Whether the WDCA intentional-tort exception applies	Employer had actual knowledge an injury was certain due to repeated ejections and manager's insistence, and willfully disregarded that knowledge	Employees used forbidden blocks contrary to policy; lack of proof of frequency/circumstances and no other serious injuries undermines certainty-of-injury inference	Dissent: genuine issues of material fact exist on actual knowledge and willful disregard; issue should be developed in discovery
Whether employer intent can be inferred from known danger and conduct	Intent can be inferred where employer knew injury was certain and acted with deliberate disregard (manager overrode safety concerns)	Absence of prior serious injuries and employee misuse suggest no employer intent to injure	Dissent: absence of other injuries does not negate a reasonable inference of actual knowledge given the dangerous ejection risk; further factfinding required

Johnson v. Detroit Edison Co., 288 Mich. App. 688 (court holds WDCA benefits are exclusive remedy, subject to intentional-tort exception)
Travis v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 453 Mich. 149 (intent to injure may be inferred where employer had actual knowledge injury was certain and deliberately disregarded it)
Powell-Murphy v. Revitalizing Auto Communities Environmental Response Trust, 333 Mich. App. 234 (summary disposition is premature where discovery is likely to uncover factual support for disputed issues)