Michael Verbouwens, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Hamm Wood Products, Defendant and Appellee, and the Maryland…

Summary

The court affirmed summary judgment for the employer, holding that the employee's allegations did not establish the intentional-tort exception to workers' compensation exclusivity. The record showed, at most, knowledge of a probable risk, not substantial certainty that the injury would occur. The court also rejected the dual-capacity theory because an employer that designs and manufactures equipment for its own business remains protected by the workers' compensation exclusivity rule.