Thomai v. MIBA Hydramechanica Corp.
303 Mich. App. 196
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Naum Thomai operated a grooving machine at MIBA that leaked oil and lacked adequate guarding after modifications; he lost his right forearm when his sleeve was caught by the running machine.
- Thomai and his wife sued MIBA alleging an intentional-tort exception to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.131(1)), claiming MIBA knew the machine was dangerous and that injury was certain.
- MIBA moved repeatedly to dismiss, arguing Thomai failed to plead or adduce evidence of a defective machine, actual employer knowledge, or that prior incidents were known to management.
- The trial court allowed an amended complaint but then entered a broad protective order severely limiting discovery (no inspection/photography of the machine; depositions limited to identity of the mechanic, alleged defects, or prior incidents).
- After limited discovery, the trial court granted summary disposition for MIBA under MCR 2.116(C)(4), (C)(8), and (C)(10), concluding Thomai could not show facts to meet the intentional-tort exception; Thomai appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended complaint sufficiently pleaded an intentional-tort exception to the exclusive-remedy provision (MCL 418.131(1)) | Thomai argued he pleaded a continuously operative dangerous condition (unguarded machine), actual employer knowledge injury was certain, and willful disregard | MIBA argued allegations were deficient (no defective machine allegation, no proof management knew, no proof of prior incidents) | Court: Complaint sufficiently pleaded an intentional-tort claim; plaintiff did not have to allege prior incidents or name a specific manager at pleading stage |
| Whether the trial court properly dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim under MCR 2.116(C)(4) and (C)(8) | Thomai: Circuit court has jurisdiction because complaint alleges facts within the MCL 418.131(1) exception | MIBA: Exclusive remedy bars suit unless plaintiff can show intentional-tort elements as matter of law | Court: Dismissal under (C)(4) and (C)(8) was erroneous because the pleadings adequately alleged the exception |
| Whether the trial court abused its discretion by entering a broad protective order limiting discovery (MCR 2.302(C)) | Thomai: Protective order prevented inspection and depositions essential to prove actual knowledge and dangerous condition; order lacked required findings and was based on legal error | MIBA: Discovery requests were overbroad and not limited to issues the court had allowed; protective order necessary to prevent fishing expeditions | Court: Protective order was an abuse of discretion — entered without required findings and based on mistaken view of law; it improperly blocked discovery of relevant evidence |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) was appropriate after the restricted discovery | Thomai: Summary disposition was premature because discovery was unfairly restricted and further discovery could uncover admissible evidence | MIBA: Plaintiff had sufficient time/opportunity and produced no evidence to support intentional-tort elements | Court: (C)(10) dismissal was premature because the improper discovery limits meant further discovery had a reasonable probability of producing supporting facts; (C)(10) grant reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Travis v Dreis & Krump Mfg Co, 453 Mich 149 (test for intentional-tort exception; actual knowledge and certainty standards)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(8) dismissal)
- In re Hatcher, 443 Mich 426 (jurisdiction depends on pleadings; pleadings establish subject-matter jurisdiction unless clearly frivolous)
- Liparoto Constr., Inc v Gen Shale Brick, Inc, 284 Mich App 25 (summary disposition under (C)(10) premature if discovery incomplete)
- Crider v Borg, 109 Mich App 771 (whether further discovery could uncover factual support governs prematurity)
- Holman v Rasak, 486 Mich 429 (appellate review of discovery limits is for abuse of discretion)
- Dorris v Detroit Osteopathic Hosp Corp, 460 Mich 26 (Michigan favors broad discovery)
- Szpak v Inyang, 290 Mich App 711 (protective order abuse where discovery of relevant evidence is prevented)
- Gay v Select Specialty Hosp, 295 Mich App 284 (protective order must be supported by findings)
- Barnard Mfg Co v Gates Performance Eng, 285 Mich App 362 (standard for supporting a (C)(10) motion)