Burchett v. Delton-Kellogg School

• Decision Date: 24 August 1966
• Docket Number: No. 4,DELTON-KELLOGG,4
• Citation: 144 N.W.2d 337,378 Mich. 231
• Parties: Lydia BURCHETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.SCHOOL, and Michigan State Accident Fund, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 337

144 N.W.2d 337

378 Mich. 231

Lydia BURCHETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DELTON-KELLOGG SCHOOL, and Michigan State Accident Fund Defendants and Appellees.

No. 4.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Aug. 24, 1966.

Hoffman, McDonald & Hoffman, Allegan, for appellant.

Stanley Dodge and Peter Munroe, Lansing, Stanley Dodge, Lansing, of counsel, for Michigan State Accident Fund.

Before the Entire Bench.

KAVANAGH, Chief Justice.

Plaintiff, a grade school teacher, seeks compensation for injuries received in a car accident which occurred on her way home from school on September 21, 1959. The workmen's compensation appeal board, relying on the rule of Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction, 371 Mich. 622, 124 N.W.2d 744, 126 N.W.2d 721 overruled a referee's order granting compensation benefits to plaintiff. This is an appeal by plaintiff, on leave granted, from the Court of Appeals' denial of leave to appeal the order of the workmen's compensation appeal board.

The evidence conclusively established that plaintiff had no time whatsoever at school to prepare lessons for her pupils or correct papers and was absolutely required to do work at home in order to properly perform her duties. The school principal and superintendent testified they expected and required plaintiff to take books home with her and do work at home. It was further established that all grade school teachers were required to take books home and to do work at home, since they had no time during the school hours to grade papers and prepare future lessons.

It was also established that along the road going to and from work plaintiff would on occasion stop to collect leaves, flowers and bird nests for nature study instructions for the children. The books she was carrying were not owned by the teacher but were furnished by the school. The school principal testified that plaintiff was 'one of the best' as a teacher.

Plaintiff contends she was performing a duty (transporting school work) expected and required of her by her employer.

Plaintiff has launched a direct attack on the Baas Case, supra, contending that this case, and others like it, can be properly disposed of by application of the 'two-fold purpose' or 'dual purpose' doctrine.

The 'going and coming cases' were discussed in Howard v. City of Detroit, 377 Mich. 102, 139 N.W.2d 677. There, compensation was awarded to an employee injured while returning to work on a splitshift schedule, on the theory that a splitshift exposed the employee to the hazards of highway travel to a greater extent than an ordinary shift. Plaintiff Howard was concededly on his own time and performing no service for his employer. Mrs. Burchett, on the other hand, was transporting papers and other school property when she was injured. Examination of previous Michigan cases discloses that this injustice need not be perpetuated.

The dual purpose rule was in effect in Michigan as long ago as 1922, when it was applied in Clifton v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 217 Mich. 462, 187 N.W. 380, to justify an award of compensation to a store employee who was instructed, as a part of his duties, to take home with him each night for safekeeping all the money taken in at the store after banking hours, and where, while so doing, he was struck by an automobile and injured. In Clifton, the Court observed that (pp. 465, 467, 187 N.W. p. 381):

'This general rule has its full application to common laborers and other employe § who work during stated hours at specified places, and when they are through for the day are free to go where they like and do as they please, with no further responsibility under their employment or duty to perform for their employers until working hours begin the next day, or until they again resume their employment. If in the meantime they are accidentally injured while going somewhere, or doing some act wholly for their own benefit, they are not protected by the statute. But that rule does not necessarily apply where the injured employe is yet acting within the scope of his employment, carrying out the orders of his employer, and performing some duty to further the latter's business. Where he was going or what he was doing might also further his own interests, but it would not in itself bar him from recovery. * * *

'That plaintiff was performing a daily duty imposed by distinct orders of his employer, at the time and as required by the terms of employment, is undisputed, and there is evidential support for the conclusion of the Board that there were peculiar circumstances surrounding this case.'

See, also, Punches v. American Box Board Co., 216 Mich. 342, 185 N.W. 758, which was cited in the Clifton Case as authority for the rule.

It should be emphasized that the general rule is that employees going or coming from work are Not covered by the workmen's compensation act. In applying the dual purpose doctrine, strict tests must be met.

The existence of the dual purpose doctrine in Michigan was established by the following cases: Punches v. American Box Board Co., 216 Mich. 342, 185 N.W. 758; Clifton v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 217 Mich. 462, 187 N.W. 380; Anderson v. Kroger Grocery & Baking Co., 326 Mich. 429, 40 N.W.2d 209. Possessing neither logic nor authority for overruling the entrenched dual purpose doctrine, the controlling opinions in Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction, 371 Mich. 622, 124 N.W.2d 744, 126 N.W.2d 721, ignore it. 'In law also the right answer usually depends on putting the right question.' ¹ Rather than engage in a fruitless query of whether the fact that plaintiff was transporting papers and books contributed in any way to her injuries, as was done in Baas, we should instead see if plaintiff meets the dual purpose rule.

The rule has been reduced to a simple formula: If a special trip would have had to be made if the employee had not combined this service with his going or coming trip, then the dual purpose rule applies. A recognized authority on workmen's compensation further subdivides this test into several questions: Does the employer expect or command teachers to transport papers home for correction? Does the employer...