Workplace injury; Whether the injury fell under the intentional-tort exception of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); MCL 418.131(1); Johnson v Detroit Edison Co; Admission of allegations by failing to deny them; MCR 2.108(A)(5); MCR 2.110(B)(5); McCracken v Detroit

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-employer summary disposition of plaintiff-employee’s action because she could not establish that defendant committed an intentional tort. Plaintiff sued defendant under the WDCA after one of her fingers was partially amputated while operating a machine at work. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant on the basis that plaintiff could not establish an intentional tort. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that her injury fell under the intentional-tort exception where defendant “willfully disregarded the danger posed by the machine and knew an operator could be injured just like” she was. “To establish an intentional tort, an employee must show that the injury was caused by the employer’s ‘deliberate act’ and that the employer ‘had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge.’” Plaintiff could not meet that standard here because she admitted the allegations in defendant’s “amended answer by failing to respond within 21 days. Those admissions establish [she] had been trained in how to operate the machine safely, she had safely operated it for more than a month before her injury, nobody had been injured by the machine as it was configured when” she was injured, defendant could not have known she would disregard its safety procedures, and she did not follow the safety procedures when she was injured. “These admissions are fatal to [her] claim. By admitting [defendant] could not have known [she] would disregard its safety procedures,” she admitted it “could not have known that the circumstances leading to her injury would have occurred. Without that knowledge, [defendant] cannot have committed an intentional tort under MCL 418.131(1).” In addition, “the lack of similar injuries shows that it is far from certain that” plaintiff’s injury would occur. Affirmed.