Legal Opinion

Temple v. H J Heinz Co.

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided September 6, 1989No. Docket 107023PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Per curiam

Plaintiff was injured on August 6, 1984, while in the course of his employment with the defendant. Relying on the "substantial certainty” standard articulated in Beauchamp v Dow Chemical Co, 427 Mich 1; 398 NW2d 882 (1986), plaintiff filed a complaint on May 7, 1987, alleging an intentional tort. On May 14, 1987, the Legislature, in 1987 PA 28, amended the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.131; MSA 17.237 (131), which effectively reversed Beauchamp. Defendant then moved for summary disposition arguing that the amendment should be given…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. White v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1988
  3. Schefsky v. Evening News Ass'nMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988
  4. Bowden v. McAndrewMichigan Court of Appeals · 1988

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Pawlak v. Redox Corp.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1990
  2. Shipman v. Fontaine Truck Equipment Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1990
  3. Smith v. Mirror Lite Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1992
  4. Kudzia v. Carboloy Division of General Electric Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1991
  5. Laundree v. AMCA InternationalCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API