Adair v. Metropolitan Bldg. Co.

• Decision Date: 22 February 1972
• Docket Number: No. 2,Docket No. 10132,2
• Citation: 38 Mich.App. 393,196 N.W.2d 335
• Parties: Frederick M. ADAIR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. METROPOLITAN BUILDING COMPANY and General Accident Group, Defendants-Appellants
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 335

196 N.W.2d 335

38 Mich.App. 393

Frederick M. ADAIR, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. METROPOLITAN BUILDING COMPANY and General Accident Group Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 10132.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 2.

Feb. 22, 1972.

Released for Publication April 24, 1972.

William D. Fazenbaker, Neal, Keil, Jakeway & Fazenbaker, Flint, for defendants-appellants.

Rene J. Ortleib, Flint, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and BRONSON and TARGONSKI, ^* JJ.

TARGONSKI, Judge.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant ¹ as a building superintendent of the Metropolitan Building, an office building in the city of Flint. Plaintiff, his wife, and son lived in the building in a five-room apartment which defendant provided.

Plaintiff was required to be on call, more or less, 24 hours per day for security purposes. His duties were to supervise and direct the independent maintenance firm which was employed by defendant to clean the building. Plaintiff was also required to see that the doors of the building were locked at night and unlocked in the morning. He was required to inspect the work after the independent cleaning contractors left the building. He was hired to be there in case of an emergency and to take whatever steps would be necessary in an emerency to protect loss to the building.

A residential manager was employed by defendant who took care of leases, book work, and hiring for the building. The heating system and elevators in the building were automatic and were maintained under a contract with an outside firm. Major electrical and plumbing work was done under contract with outside tradesmen. Plaintiff was not required to do any physical work in the building. Physical work was either done by other employees of defendant or was contracted out. In the evening plaintiff was pretty much free to do as he pleased as long as the various systems of the building were running properly.

During the daytime of December 30, 1968, plaintiff left defendant's building to take his laundry to a laundromat because there were no laundry facilities within defendant's building. Plaintiff left the building by a main entrance and walked along a public sidewalk to a driveway adjoining the building on the south side. The driveway was owned by Consumers Power Company. While walking along the driveway to a parking area maintained by defendant, where plaintiff had parked his car, plaintiff slipped and fell on the icy surface and fractured his left hip. The place where plaintiff fell was not on the property owned, occupied, or maintained by the owner of the Metropolitan Building. There was an alternate route to the parking lot, of equal distance, which traversed a public sidewalk and a parking area which was maintained free of ice and snow by defendant. Testimony of plaintiff and his wife showed that they usually left the building and went to their car in the parking lot along the private drive owned by Consumers Power Company.

Prior to the date of hearing, plaintiff had recovered from his injuries sufficiently to be capable of doing the work he had been doing prior to the accident, although his injuries still hindered his capacity to perform in other areas of employment. He had applied for similar jobs after being discharged by defendant. He said that he was capable at the time of managing an apartment building and actively sought apartment managing or supervision as employment. He was unable to obtain such employment.

On November 14, 1969, a hearing was held. Three days later, the hearing referee issued a decision and order which found that plaintiff did receive a personal injury which arose out of his employment and was totally disabled at the time of the hearing. On August 10, 1970, the Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board affirmed the referee. Leave to appeal was granted.

On appeal defendant raises two issues. Defendant contends that plaintiff's accident and injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. Further, defendant contends that plaintiff was not entitled to compensation benefits after the date of the hearing.

In examining the first issue raised, of whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment, we must ascertain whether the injury falls within the scope of M.C.L.A. § 412.1; M.S.A. § 17.151. ² To answer this, two problems must be decided; (1) whether plaintiff was on the 'premises' when the injury occurred, and (2) whether the personal errand could be considered 'arising out of and in the course of his employment'?

The problem of whether plaintiff was on the 'premises' when the injury occurred can be resolved in view of Jean v. Chrysler Corporation, 2 Mich.App. 564, 140 N.W.2d 756 (1966), and Fischer v. Lincoln Tool & Die Co., 37 Mich.App. 198, 194 N.W.2d 476. In Jean, 2 Mich.App. p. 568, 140 N.W.2d p. 758, an injury upon a public roadway lying between the employer-owned parking lot and his place of business was held to be compensable. Our Court stated:

'* * * that the employee who leaves work and within a reasonable time is injured in reaching other premises maintained by his employer as an adjunct of the employment is covered by the act.'

In Fischer, the plaintiff was injured on a public sidewalk while walking toward his employer's place of business from his car which he had parked on the street. This Court held that an employee injured upon a public sidewalk while on his way to work and while within a close proximity to the place where he works suffers an injury which is compensable as arising out of and in the course of his employment. In discussing what construction should be given the word 'premises' as contained in M.C.L.A. § 412.1; M.S.A. § 17.151, this Court said:

"Premises' does not equal 'property' and land owned by an employer may or may not be part of the premises, just as land owned by another than the employer might still be considered part of his premises.'

After discussing Lasiewicki v. Tusco Products Company, 372 Mich. 125, 125 N.W.2d 479 (1963), and Jean v. Chrysler Corporation, Supra, this Court announced in Fischer, supra, 37 Mich.App. p. 203, 194 N.W.2d p. 479:

'From an analysis of present case law we conclude that 'zone, environments and hazards' is substantially what is meant by the word 'premises' as contained in the workmen's compensation act.

'From the above we can conclude that an employee is protected by the act when he is within said 'zone, environments, and hazards,' while arriving at, departing from, or during the time of his employment by traveling his usual, customary and direct route.'

Here, defendant provided the parking lot and gave plaintiff permission to use the lot, with plaintiff having to cross another's property or walk on a public sidewalk to reach the lot. We are not concerned with whether the property, which was crossed, was privately or publicly controlled or whether more than one route was available; but in light of Jean v. Chrysler Corporation, Supra, and Fischer v. Lincoln Tool & Die Co., Supra, we conclude that plaintiff was within the 'zone, environments and hazards' of his labor so as to be considered on the premises of his employer in regard to M.C.L.A. § 412.1; M.S.A. § 17.151.

Having established that plaintiff was within the 'zone, environments and hazards' of his labor or, in other words, having sufficiently satisfied the premises requirement in M.C.L.A. § 412.1; M.S.A. § 17.151, we must determine whether the errand can be considered to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. Both parties have conceded in their respective briefs that plaintiff was a resident employee continuously on call 24 hours per day. The appeal board also came to a similar determination, saying:

'Even without the presumption afforded by the 1954 amendment this case would be compensable because the proofs presented herein show that plaintiff was employed under a special type of contract of hire where the activities and duties imposed upon him by his employer clearly placed him at the point of peril at the time the injury occurred. The course of employment is not synonymous with scope of employment, but includes an employee's administration to his own human needs, (Crilly v. Ballou, 353 Mich. 303 (91 N.W.2d 493) (1958)). Plaintiff's trip to the laundromat under the circumstances disclosed by the proofs before us was a unique way of life in his working environment which was imposed upon him by the particular contract of hire existing between himself and his employer. We hold that the injury which plaintiff received did arise out of and in the course of the activities and duties imposed upon him by the contract of employment he held with the defendant herein.'

With respect to resident employees continuously on call, the general rule is most aptly stated by Larson:

'When an employee is required to live on the premises, either by his contract of employment or by the nature of the employment, as is continuously on call whether or not actually on duty), the entire period of his presence on the premises pursuant to this requirement is deemed included in the course of employment.' 1 Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law, § 24.00, p. 421. See also, Favorite v. Kalamazoo State Hospital, 238 Mich. 566, 214 N.W. 229 (1927).

Although this is the generally accepted rule of law, in the past some limitations were placed upon the on-call coverage on the theory that the activity was too distinctly personal to support an award. See Meehan v. Marion Manor Apartments, 305 Mich. 262, 9 N.W.2d 534 (1943). But the recent trend of Michigan law has been very liberal in expanding the coverage afforded an employee under the workman's compensation laws. Generally, an employee who is on a personal errand is covered by statute. Dyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 350 Mich. 92, 85 N.W.2d 152 (1957); Lasiewicki v. Tusco Products Company, Supra. Even though these recent cases which have upheld an award to an employee who is on a personal errand...