Amicucci v. Ford Motor Co.

• Decision Date: 24 February 1944
• Docket Number: No. 25.,25.
• Citation: 13 N.W.2d 241,308 Mich. 151
• Parties: AMICUCCI v. FORD MOTOR CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

308 Mich. 151

13 N.W.2d 241

AMICUCCI

v.FORD MOTOR CO.

No. 25.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 24, 1944.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Baldoino Amicucci, claimant, opposed by the Ford Motor Company, employer. From an award of the Department of Labor and Industry in favor of the claimant, the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the Department of Labor and Industry.

Before the Entire Bench.

Doelle, Starkey & Jones, of Detroit, for appellant.

F. R. Picone, of Detroit (Valois Crossley, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Plaintiff Baldoino Amicucci and another employee, Harvey Flowers, worked for defendant Ford Motor Company at the same bench, burring, filing and grinding aluminum stock. Each man used an air-driven emery grinder which resulted in the accumulation of considerable dust on the work bench and their clothing.

On the day in question, Flowers, having completed his particular job, removed the air hose from his grinder and, in the words of the department of labor and industry-‘as was customary among the employees, used the hose to blow the dust off the bench and off his clothes. Some of the dust was blown on the plaintiff.’

Flowers testified that, after blowing off his bench and his own clothes, he blew the air from the hose across the shoulders of plaintiff and then brought the hose down along the center of plaintiff's back to a position of about one foot below his rectum, and then brought the hose, which carried an air pressure of about 250 lbs., up the center of plaintiff's back. Plaintiff gave an exclamation of pain, and fell. He was taken to the first-aid department and from there sent to the hospital. Upon his admission to the hospital the examining physician found that plaintiff's abdomen was blown up to about twice its normal circumference, and a diagnosis of perforation of the intestines due to compressed air was made. An emergency operation was immediately performed by opening the peritoneal cavity, expelling the air and suturing the perforations. Because of plaintiff's condition a colostomy was necessary and he remained in the hospital over four months. At the time of the hearing, about 8 months after the accident, the colostomy was still open.

The department found that there was no direct testimony which would give credence to any claimed horseplay. There were apparently no eyewitnesses to the occurrence and both plaintiff and Flowers positively denied there was any horseplay. Both testified that it was a customary and common practice to use the hose to clean off the work bench and each other's clothes.

The department held that plaintiff's injury and subsequent disability did not result from horseplay or from any act outside the scope of his employment or from a violation of a company rule, and that the disability was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of plaintiff's employment.

Defendant obtained leave to appeal from an award granting plaintiff compensation of $18 per week for total disability from August 19, 1942 to February 24, 1943, and medical fees in the sum of $1,395.59.

The phrase, ‘arising out of and in the course of his employment’ (2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 8417, Stat.Ann. § 17.151) was edopted in identical words from the English Workmen's Compensation Act, ‘and presumably with the meaning previously given it there.’ Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., 184 Mich. 87, 90, 150 N.W. 325, 326, L.R.A.1916A, 310. Its meaning was fully discussed in the Hopkins and subsequent cases, and in Haller v. City of Lansing, 195 Mich. 753, 162 N.W. 335, 337, L.R.A.1917E, 324, a number of applicable English authorities are reviewed. In the Haller case the court said:

‘The general rule as to injuries during intermissions from labor, especially where the accident occurs on the employer's premises, is formulated from the decisions as follows in [1] Honnold on Workmen's Compensation, vol. 1, p. 381:

“Acts of ministration by a servant to himself, such as quenching his thirst, relieving his hunger, protecting himself from excessive cold, performance of which while at work are reasonably necessary to his health and comfort, are incidents to his employment and acts of service therein within the Workmen's Compensation Acts, though they are only indirectly conducive to the purpose of the employment. Consequently no break in the employment is caused by the mere fact that the workman is ministering to his comforts or necessities, as by warming himself, or seeking shelter, or by leaving his work to relieve nature, or to procure a drink, refreshments, food, or fresh air, or to rest in the shade' (citing numerous sustaining cases).'

The courts of Illinois, California, Minnesota and New Jersey have applied the reasoning used in the Haller case, under somewhat similar circumstances. See Steel Sales Corporation v. Industrial Commission, 293 Ill. 435, 127 N.E. 698, 14 A.L.R. 274;Whiting-Mead Commercial Co. v. Industrial Acc. Commission, 178 Cal. 505, 173 P. 1105, 5 A.L.R. 1518;Elliott v. Industrial Acc. Commission, 21 Cal.2d 281, 131 P.2d 521, 144 A.L.R. 358;McKenzie v. Railway Exp. Agency, Inc., 205 Minn. 231, 285 N.W. 529;Taylor v. 110 S. Penna Ave. Corp., 117 N.J.L. 346, 188 A. 689; and Terlecki v. Strauss & Co., 85 N.J.L. 454, 89 A. 1023.

Though the Compensation Law is not a cover-all...