Bisdom v. Kerbrat
| Decision Date | 03 October 1930 |
| Docket Number | June Term.,No. 83,83 |
| Citation | 251 Mich. 316,232 N.W. 408 |
| Parties | BISDOM v. KERBRAT et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Clara Bisdom, claimant, for the death of her husband, opposed by Frank Kerbrat, employer, and the Indemnity Insurance Company of North America, insurance carrier. Claimant was awarded compensation, and the employer and insurance carrier bring certiorari.
Affirmed.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Bishop & Weaver, of Detroit, for appellants.
C. H. & G. M. Lehman, of Detroit, for appellee.
Frank Kerbrat and the Indemnity Insurance Company of America, defendants, have appealed from a compensation award made to plaintiff, the widow of Ruloef Bisdom. Kerbrat was in the landscape gardening business in the city of Detroit and surrounding Company of America, defendants, have appealed from a compensation award made to plaintiff, the widow of Ruloef Bisdom. Kerbrat was in the landscape gardening business in the city of Detroit and surrounding territory. He employed Bisdom not only to superintend jobs, but also to assist in obtaining them. Each morning he assigned to Bisdom the work for the day. He provided him with a Ford pick-up car and paid the expenses of maintenance.
Although as a rule Bisdom's working day would end at 5:30 p. m., at times he was called upon to work later. At 4:30 p. m. on August 29, 1929, he was directed by Kerbrat to go to his home in Mt. Clemens, a considerable distance from the job where he was working, eat his dinner, change his clothes, and then almost immediately return to Detroit and call for his employer at the latter's home and accompany him to Grosse Isle, Mich., in order to assist in soliciting a job for landscape gardening. Kerbrat was a Belgian; he spoke English with difficulty, and required Bisdom's assistance in making estimates and soliciting contracts.
When Bisdom left at 4:30 p. m., his day's work was not finished. He was not going home for the night, but only to eat his dinner and change his attire, so as to make a more presentable appearance while continuing his day's work. Bisdom, while on his way home, met with an automobile accident which resulted in his death. He was acting within the course of his employment and in accordance with the directions of his employer at the time he suddenly met with his death through the hazards incurred on the public highway. The injuries arose out of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McClure v. General Motors Corp., Fisher Body Division, Fleetwood Plant
...returning to the terminal in his car, was injured in an auto accident. With heavy reliance upon the earlier case of Bisdom v. Kerbrat, 251 Mich. 316, 232 N.W. 408 (1930), a divided court reversed an appeal board denial of benefits, "In (Bisdom v. Kerbrat ), plaintiff was en route to his din......
-
Howard v. City of Detroit
...injured. In this case, also, plaintiff had not finished his day's work. We agree with the dissenting opinion that the facts presented in Bisdom are sufficiently analogous to warrant its application We conclude that the majority of the appeal board was in error in its ultimate conclusion tha......
-
Phillips v. Fitzhugh Motor Co.
...Detroit Railroad Co., 251 Mich. 309, 232 N.W. 369; Anderson v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 326 Mich. 429, 40 N.W.2d 209; Bisdom v. Kerbrat, 251 Mich. 316, 232 N.W. 408; Merriman v. Manning, Maxwell & Moore, 251 Mich. 318, 232 N.W. 409; Papinaw v. Grand Trunk Railway Co. of Canada, 189 Mich......
-
Moosebrugger v. Prospect Presbyterian Church of Maplewood
...the switch which started the pumps for the following morning's mining operations. See 1 Larson, supra, at 222. In Bisdom v. Kerbrat, 251 Mich. 316, 232 N.W. 408 (Sup.Ct.1930) the employee's regular working day ended at 5:30 P.M. but at times he was called upon to work later. On the day in q......