Chaffee v. Stenger
| Citation | 104 N.W.2d 805,361 Mich. 57 |
| Decision Date | 15 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 49,49 |
| Parties | William CHAFFEE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. William STENGER, d/b/a Bill's Junction Garage, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Michigan |
van Benschoten & van Benschoten, Saginaw, for plaintiff and appellant.
Stanton & MacKenzie, Saginaw, for defendant and appellee.
Before the Entire Bench.
Plaintiff brought suit for damages resulting from defendant's alleged negligence. The declaration expressly alleged that plaintiff was not defendant's employee. The answer filed by defendant generally denied all of the substantive allegations made in the declaration and alleged that plaintiff was paid workmen's compensation benefits for his injuries as an employee of defendant for a period of 11 weeks.
The trial court dismissed the declaration on motion made by defendant before trial. The motion to dismiss asserted that payment to plaintiff of $396 in workmen's compensation benefits constituted a release to defendant of all claims arising from plaintiff's injury by virtue of section 1 of part 6 of the workmen's compensation law. C.L.1948, § 416.1 (Stat.Ann.1950 Rev., § 17.212). The motion was supported by an affidavit of a claim adjuster for defendant's insurance company in which the adjuster swore that he had 'personal knowledge that William Chaffee stated that he was an employee of William Stenger at the time of the explosion.'
Plaintiff filed an answer to the motion alleging that the payments received by him were voluntarily paid by the insurance company, that he was not an employee of defendant at the time of the explosion, and that his status was a question of fact to be determined by a jury.
At the hearing on the motion to dismiss, defendant introuduced in evidence certified copies of the workmen's compensation department's forms 100, 101 and 102, the employer's report of injury, notice of commencement of payments and notice of stopping of payments, respectively. Also introduced were 10 canceled checks by which plaintiff was paid 11 weekly benefits of $36 each. No other evidence was taken at the hearing. Based upon the foregoing pleadings and exhibits, the trial court dismissed the declaration on the theory that plaintiff, having received compensation beefits plaintiff, having received compensation benefits of employer-employee relationship, and having done so he cannot now bring proceedings on an inconsistent opposite theory or claim.' The trial court ruled that section 1 of part 6 of the act controlled and that acceptance of such payments released defendant of all claims at law.
But, section 1 of part 6 of the act presupposes the existence of an employee-employer relationshep:
'If the employe, or his dependents, in case of his death, of any employer subject to the provisions of this act files any claim with, or accepts any payment from such employer, or any insurance company carrying such risks, or from the commissioner of insurance on account of personal injury, or makes any agreement, or submits any question to arbitration under this act, such action shall constitute a release to such employer of all claims or demands at law, if any, arising from such injuryt.'
Unless we are to hold that acceptance of payments by plaintiff from defendant's insurance carrier constitutes proof of the existence of an employment relationship between the parties, there is no basis whatever for concluding that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Higgins v. Monroe Evening News
...is a matter of fact which may not be prescinded from the factfinder if any of the facts are in dispute. See Chaffee v. Stenger, 361 Mich. 57, 104 N.W.2d 805 (1960); Holcomb v. Bullock, 353 Mich. 514, 91 N.W.2d 869 (1958); and Erickson v. Goodell Oil Co., Inc., 384 Mich. 207, 180 N.W.2d 798 ......
-
Hoste v. Shanty Creek Management, Inc.
...language, or other pertinent circumstances of a relationship is a question of fact, if facts are in dispute. See Chaffee v. Stenger, 361 Mich. 57, 104 N.W.2d 805 (1960), Holcomb v. Bullock, 353 Mich. 514, 91 N.W.2d 869 (1958), and Erickson v. Goodell Oil Co., Inc, 384 Mich. 207, 180 N.W.2d ......
-
Jordan v. C. A. Roberts Co., 9
...benefits does not constitute a determination of employee status under the act so as to bar an action for negligence. Chaffee v. Stenger (1960), 361 Mich. 57, 104 N.W.2d 805. Acceptance of benefits voluntarily paid and a subsequent attempt to obtain an award of compensation were held not to ......
-
Erickson v. Goodell Oil Co.
...C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 611. The question of an employee-employer relationship presents an issue of fact. In Chaffee v. Stenger, Supra, p. 60, 104 N.W.2d 805, 806, Mr. Justice Souris, speaking for a unanimous Court, (1922), 219 Mich. 178, 189 N.W. 221; Vaivida v. City of Grand Rapid......