895 F. Supp. 2d 854
E.D. Mich.2012Background
- Johnson died in a Redford galvanizing plant accident (Nov 3, 2009) while hanging parts from racks on stands.
- Plaintiff, the decedent’s estate, sues the employer alleging an intentional-tort exception to the Workers’ Compensation exclusive remedy.
- Defendant moved for summary judgment contending the record does not prove the exception applies.
- Court denied summary judgment after recognizing material fact issues on whether the employer knew injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge.
- Evidence shows supervisors knew racks were unstable and that production pressures encouraged unsafe practices; prior near-misses and crashes were reported; factory changed to two racks on a single pair of stands, increasing risk.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff can prove the intentional tort exception under 418.131(1). | Johnson’s estate argues the employer knowingly created a continuously dangerous condition likely to cause injury. | V&S Detroit asserts no proof of certainty of injury; no actual knowledge of a specific injury was shown. | Issues of material fact preclude summary judgment. |
| Whether the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded it. | Evidence shows supervisors knew of hazards and did not adequately inform or correct them. | Plaintiff must show actual certainty; mere risk or likelihood is insufficient. | Question for the jury remains on actual knowledge and certainty. |
| Whether the danger was a continuously operative condition that the employer knew would cause injury and failed to inform workers. | Racks and stands were a continuously dangerous condition; management knew of risks. | Evidence does not prove withholding of information or failure to inform under Travis/Giles standards. | Issue for jury: continuous condition with knowledge and failure to inform could exist. |
| Whether evidence of safety practices and occasional safe lifts defeats inevitability of injury. | Despite some safe lifts, the plant’s practice of dual racks on a single stand created an inevitable risk. | occasional safe lifts show not every scenario yields injury; not enough to prove certainty. | Not dispositive; jury could find inevitability given overall evidence. |
| Whether summary judgment is appropriate given the record. | Record shows multiple indications of knowledge and dangerous conditions. | The record lacks proof of certainty and actual knowledge to grant summary judgment. | Genuine issues of material fact preclude granting summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co., 427 Mich. 1 (1986) (intentional tort exception origins; strict certainty not required)
- Travis v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 453 Mich. 149 (1996) (established modern 418.131(1) exception framework; certainty standard)
- Gray v. Morley, 460 Mich. 738 (1999) (clarified ‘certainty’ and conduct of employer with knowledge)
- Upsher v. Grosse Pointe Public School System, 285 F.3d 448 (6th Cir.2002) (illustrated the continuous dangerous condition standard in practice)
- House v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 248 Fed.Appx. 645 (6th Cir.2007) (employer knowledge and employee discretion limitations under Travis framework)
- Giles v. Ameritech, 468 Mich. 897 (2003) (applied continuous condition doctrine in Michigan context)