Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House, No. 7.

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Writing for the Court: CLARK
• Citation: 178 N.W. 705,211 Mich. 285
• Parties: ST. CLAIR v. A. H. MEYER MUSIC HOUSE et al.
• Decision Date: 20 July 1920
• Docket Number: No. 7.

211 Mich. 285
178 N.W. 705

ST. CLAIR
v.
A. H. MEYER MUSIC HOUSE et al.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 20, 1920.

Certiorari to Industrial Accident Board.

Proceeding by Clayton St. Clair under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Pub. Laws 1912 [Ex. Sess.] No. 10) to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the A. H. Meyer Music House, the employer, and the Travelers' Insurance Company, the insurer. There was an award of compensation by the Industrial Accident Board, and the employer and insurance company bring certiorari. Award affirmed.

Argued before STEERE, BROOKE, FELLOWS, STONE, CLARK, BIRD, and SHARPE, JJ.

Brooke and Steere, JJ., dissenting.

[178 N.W. 705]

Vandeveer & Foster, of Detroit, for appellants.

Fred T. Miles, of Holland, for appellee.

CLARK, J.

The respondent, A. H. Meyer Music House, a corporation, was engaged in the business of selling and delivering pianos and other musical instruments. Applicant, having 35 years' experience in that business, was in its employ, and he and one other employé, Frank G. Swift, were directed to deliver a piano to a customer of said respondent. The piano was to be delivered to the second floor of a building, reached by a steep, narrow stairway of about 20 steps. The truck upon which the piano was carried was backed to the front of the building; the piano being upon a piano skid, which resembles a sled, the runners being polished to slide easily. To the front end of the skid a rope was attached, which looped from the front end of the right runner to the front end of the left runner. The rope was used in lifting. In going up the stairs, applicant was in front of the piano and Mr. Swift behind. Applicant was assisted by a lady who ‘was not very strong’ and a man who ‘was very weak,’ both inexperienced in that work. A minister and a lady of the neighborhood, likewise inexperienced, attempted to assist Mr. Swift. With such assistance as they had, applicant lifting in front and Mr. Swift pushing behind, the piano was taken up the stairs step by step. When the last step was reached the piano was pulled and pushed forward until its center was over the last stair riser, when it was ‘broken over’ to rest flat on the floor. Applicant testified that the last pull was the hardest, that the piano weighed about 900 pounds, and that just as he was making the last pull he felt something give way in his head. He immediately became

[178 N.W. 706]

ill. A physician was called, who found a rupture of a blood vessel, an artery, of the brain-cerebral hemorrhage-causing and resulting in paralysis of the left side. The physician testified that the rupture of the blood vessel was due to high blood pressure, caused by the unusual exertion, the lift, sudden straining, and that applicant's arteries were weakened by disease, arteriosclerosis. There was an award in favor of applicant, and it is here the sole contention of respondents, plaintiffs in certiorari, that there was no evidence of accidental injury arising out of and in the course of applicant's employment.

[1] The fact that applicant was predisposed because of disease to this form of attack is immaterial, and has nothing to do with the question whether what befell him is to be regarded as an accident or not. See La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 190 Mich. at page 607, 157 N. W. 72, L. R. A. 1918D, 1277. Justice Stone, speaking for the court in Guthrie v. Detroit Shipbuilding Co., 200 Mich. at page 360, 167 N. W. at page 39, said:

‘That an injury received by a workman while engaged in his usual work, without intervention of something unusual or fortuitous, is not an accident, is now so well established by our decisions that the proposition needs no discussion.’

See, also, Schroetke v. Jackson-Church Co., 193 Mich. at page 622, 160 N. W. 383, L. R. A. 1917D, 64.

Bringing this case within the rule as above stated, the board found unusual and fortuitous circumstances:

‘This applicant was lifting at a disadvantage. He was doing unusual work; in fact, two men were practically attempting to do the work which ordinarily required the efforts of four or five. They were working under unusual apprehension, on account of the lack of help and the inexperience of the women and men who were endeavoring to assist them. The injury occurred at a point where it was necessary to put forth the greatest effort, and at a time when apprehension of danger was evidently the greatest. * * * The applicant was called upon at this particular point to put forth unusual effort, under unusual and fortuitous circumstances, and the unusual...