An employee often worked with a team that performed a procedure known as “die-flipping.” The dies weighed between 5,000 and 25,000 pounds. Die-flipping requires employees to connect the die to a steel I-beam with a cable, permitting them to hoist the I beam and die with a vehicle. The employee had participated in many die-flipping operations, and based on these experiences, he came to the belief that the process was unnecessarily dangerous, that the company emphasized “get[ting] it done as quick[ly] as possible” at the expense of precaution, and that there was no formal procedure for safely performing the task. He expressed these concerns to his immediate supervisors and suggested the purchase of specialized die-flipping equipment and establishment of a protocol for the procedure. Acknowledging the danger, the supervisors conveyed these requests to members of the plant’s upper management, but no action was taken. During a subsequent “die-flipping,” the die became stuck. Observing the process from a safe distance, the employee motioned to the vehicle operator to stop and ran across the front of the vehicle “to the other side to see if it was hung up on something.” Suddenly, “[s]omething snapped” or “broke loose,” causing the I-beam to fly off the forklift and to bounce off the cement and smash the employee’s leg. After the accident, the plant’s human resources manager told the employee that the accident never would have happened had upper management approved the purchase of new equipment. Was this an “intentional injury,” or was workers’ compensation the employee’s exclusive remedy?