Wrongful death action arising out of a workplace shooting; MCL 600.2922; The intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); MCL 418.131; Gray v Morley; Principle that where the employer is a corporate entity, a particular employee must possess the requisite state of mind in order to prove an intentional tort; Travis v Dreis & Krump Mfg Co; Whether an injury was certain to occur; Herman v Detroit; Effect of evidence of gun ownership by an employee on whether the employer knew the employee was dangerous; LaDuke v Ziebart Corp; Distinguishing Johnson v Detroit Edison Co; Leave to amend; MCR 2.116(I)(5); Distinguishing Global Prod v Mayser Polymer USA, Inc (Unpub)

The court held that the trial court did not err by finding plaintiff failed to state a claim under the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA, or by denying her request to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff sued defendant after the decedent was shot and killed by a co-worker (Waller) while working at defendants’ store. The trial court granted defendants’ renewed motion for summary disposition. The court previously affirmed but remanded to allow plaintiff an opportunity to file a motion for leave to amend the complaint. On remand, plaintiff added a variety of new allegations, but the trial court again granted summary disposition for defendants, essentially stating that “the facts pleaded by plaintiff, taken as true, were not sufficient state a claim under the WDCA’s intentional tort exception because she failed to allege facts showing that an injury was certain to occur.” In the present appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by finding she failed to state a claim under the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA. “While plaintiff’s first amended complaint does add allegations that Waller had access to a gun, those allegations do not suggest that” defendants knew she had access to a gun. And “evidence of gun ownership by an employee, standing alone, does not prove that the employer knew the employee was dangerous.” The allegations sounded in negligence and did “not satisfy the elements of the intentional tort exception to the WDCA.” And they did “not establish that defendants had no doubt that an injury was certain to occur, as required by Herman.” Rather, they were “allegations that defendants did not act reasonably. But the exclusive remedy for an injury caused by the negligence of an employer in Michigan is provided by the WDCA.” Further, unlike “Johnson, where management had no doubt that injuries were going to occur prior to the plaintiffs being burned, the allegations in the present case suggest that defendants’ manager was concerned about an altercation that might occur between decedent and Waller the day before the shooting at issue.” The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by not allowing her to file a second amended complaint, finding: “(1) the trial court allowed plaintiff to file an amended complaint and (2) the evidence before the court shows that yet another amendment would not be justified in this matter.” Affirmed.