$20\mathrm{.}4$ Ethics Case

Jeffrey Glockzin was an employee of Nordyne, Inc. $($Nordyne$),$ which manufactured air$-$conditioning units. Sometimes Glockzin worked as an assembly line tester. The job consisted of using bare metal alligator$-$type clips to attach one of two wire leads from the testing equipment to each side of the air$-$conditioning unit. When the tester turned on a toggle switch, the air$-$conditioning unit was energized. Once a determination was made that the air$-$conditioning unit was working properly, the toggle switch would be turned off and the wire leads removed.

One day, while testing an air$-$conditioning unit, Glockzin grabbed both alligator clips at the same time. He had failed to turn off the toggle switch, however. Glockzin received a $240-$volt electric shock, causing his death. Glockzin$$s heirs sued Nordyne for wrongful death and sought to recover damages for an intentional tort. Nordyne made a motion for summary judgment, alleging that workers$$ compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy for Glockzin$$s death. Glockzin$$s heirs argued that the $$intentional tort$$ exception to the rule that workers$$ compensation is the exclusive remedy for a worker$$s injury applied in this case. Glockzin v$.$ Nordyne, Inc., $815$ F$.$Supp. $1050,1992$ U$.$S$.$ Dist. Lexis $8059($United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan$)$

What is the exclusive remedy rule of workers$$ compensation? What is the intentional tort exception to this rule?

Did Nordyne$$s management violate its ethical duty by not providing safer testing equipment?

Who wins, and why?