The Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) was created in order to ensure that employees injured on the job would receive compensation for their injuries, while at the same time protecting employers from tort liability. An injured worker must generally pursue compensation through the worker’s compensation system, rather than in tort. Essentially, both employer and employee trade the uncertainty of recovery in a tort action for the certainty of a worker’s compensation claim. Moreover, the employee may still sue other, non-employer parties such as the manufacturer of a machine that caused the injury. This is a very high standard. Negligence—even gross negligence—is insufficient to hold the employer liable.
The only exception to this rule allows an employee to recover damages from the employer if the employee can prove that the employer committed an intentional tort. In order to prevail, the employee must prove the employer acted deliberately, and with intent to cause an injury. Intent to injure will be imputed to the employer if the employer (1) had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and (2) disregards that knowledge.
In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision (Click Here to See a Copy of the Court’s Decision), the court ruled that liability for an intentional tort may exist where “the employer subjects an employee to a continuously operative dangerous condition that the employer knows will cause an injury, that it knows employees are taking insufficient precautions to protect themselves, and that the employer takes no action to remedy the situation.” This case presented a unique situation where multiple injuries occurred, management knew of the injuries, solutions to preventing injuries were discussed, and no changes were made. This created a “certainty of harm” because the employees had no effective means of protecting themselves from injury.
The Court of Appeals, in noting that the employers could have prevented the injuries by adopting some remedial safety equipment, seemed to adopt a negligence standard. Had the employer taken certain safety precautions it would not be open to liability. Only time will tell whether this case is the first step toward judicial erosion of the prior strict interpretation of the exclusive remedy provision.
This article was written by Michael K. Hayes, Legal Clerk at Demorest Law Firm.
