Brandner v. Myers Funeral Home

• Citation: 47 N.W.2d 658,330 Mich. 392
• Decision Date: 14 May 1951
• Docket Number: No. 7,7
• Parties: BRANDNER v. MYERS FUNERAL HOME et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 658

47 N.W.2d 658

330 Mich. 392

BRANDNER v. MYERS FUNERAL HOME et al.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

May 14, 1951.

Eldred & Eldred, Ionia, for plaintiff and appellee.

Harry F. Briggs, Lansing, for defendants and appellants, Peter Munroe, Lansing, of counsel.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Plaintiff's decedent, hereinafter called plaintiff, was employed as a receptionist at defendant funeral home. Her duties included answering the telephone and doorbell. Her employer and family being away on a vacation, she was required to stay at the place nights, during which she was left in sole charge, responsible for receiving incoming calls. A bedroom and bathroom in her employer's living quarters over the funeral parlors were made available for her use. At about 11:00 p. m., after taking a bath, she stepped out of the bathtub onto a small rug. The telephone rang, whereupon she reached for her housecoat, intending to go to the bedroom to answer the call. The rug slipped, causing her to fall and break her hip. Did plaintiff's injury and resultant disability arise out of and in the course of her employment?

Defendants, appealing from an award of compensation by the commission, contend that plaintiff's injury was the direct result of her taking a bath; that she could have taken a bath on her own time, at her own home; that there was no causal connection between her injury and her work; that she was doing nothing for the benefit of her employer but was on a mission of her own when injured; that, in consequence, her injury did not arise out of or in the course of her employment. They rely on Meehan v. Marion Manor Apartments, 305 Mich. 262, 9 N.W.2d 534, and Daniel v. Murray Corporation of America, 326 Mich. 1, 39 N.W.2d 229. In the Meehan Case the employee was not on duty and was doing nothing for his employer when his injury occurred. In the Daniel Case the employee was injured after his work for the day was ended, while he was on his way home. Distinguishable is the instant case in which plaintiff was injured while on duty. She had not finished her work for the day, but on the contrary, injury accidentally befell her while she was engaged in performing one of the duties of her employment, namely, going to the telephone to answer a call. 'An injury arises out of and in the course of the employment when it occurs while engaged in the duties of the employment and it has a rational causal connection to the work.' Anderson v. Kroger Grocery & Banking Co., 326 Mich. 429, 432, 40 N.W.2d 209, 210.

For cases in which employee's injuries were held to have arisen out of and in the course of employment when sustained on the job while he was engaged in acts of ministration to himself, see Amicucci v. Ford Motor Co., 308 Mich. 151, 13 N.W.2d 241, and Haller v. City of Lansing, 195 Mich. 753, 162 N.W. 335, L.R.A.1917E, 324.

The commission awarded plaintiff compensation on June 14, 1950; on July 10 defendants filed application for leave to appeal to this court, which was allowed on September 12. Plaintiff died on October 18, 1950, and a suggestion of death and prayer for substitution of the administrator of her estate as party plaintiff was filed in this court by plaintiff's attorneys on December 21, 1950. On December 22 this court ordered that the cause be revived and proceed to final judgment in the name of the administrator, in the place of the...