Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JAMES ALLEN, and CHERYL ALLEN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v DOWDING INDUSTRIES, INC, MAURICE H. DOWDING, and KAREN S. DOWDING, Defendants-Appellees.

UNPUBLISHED August 16, 1996

No. 177651 LC No. 92-000546-NO

Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Neff and Fitzgerald, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff James Allen was injured when his hand was caught in a press he operated as an employee of defendant Dowding Industries, Inc. Plaintiffs instituted this suit for damages, alleging Allen's injury was a result of an intentional tort by defendant Dowding Industries, and that Karen and Maurice Dowding incurred premises liability as owners and lessors of the building. The trial court granted summary disposition to defendants. Plaintiffs appeal that order by leave granted and we affirm. I We first examine plaintiffs' claim that Allen's injuries arose out of Dowding Industries' intentional act, and thus his recovery is not limited by the Worker's Disability Compensation Act. MCL 418.101 et seq.; MSA 17.237(101) et seq. Section 131 of that act provides the scope of the act with regard to a plaintiff's recovery: (1) The right to the 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 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. This subsection shall not enlarge or reduce rights under law. [MCL 418.131(1); MSA 17.237(131)(1).] -1

This Court has repeatedly held that in order to meet the burden imposed by

Download JAMES ALLEN V DOWDING INDUSTRIES INC.pdf

Michigan Law