Dent v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 02 March 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 130.,130. |
| Citation | 265 N.W. 518,275 Mich. 39 |
| Parties | DENT v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal (in Nature of Certiorari) from Department of Albor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Herbert Dent, employee, opposed by the Ford Motor Company, employer. From a judgment of the Department of Labor and Industry awarding compensation, the employer appeals.
Award vacated.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
E. C. Starkey and F. A. Nolan, both of Dearborn, for appellant.
Gloster, Giller & Briggs, of Detroit, for appellee.
The pivotal question in this case is whether plaintiff suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. He was employed in defendant's powerhouse and, October 15, 1929, having finished work for the day, checked out and started for his home, leaving defendant's premises by way of a gate opening on a public street and, while in the street, a few feet from the gate, in crossing a railroad track, slipped on one of the rails and was injured.
A deputy commissioner found: ‘no accident which arose out of and in the course of employment.’ Upon appeal the commission found to the contrary and an award of compensation was made. Review is by defendant.
The railroad track upon which he slipped, entered defendant's premises near the gate, through which he passed to the street, for he testified that, after he went out of the gate he slipped on the rail at a point about five feet from he gate and two or three feet from the fence. He was then on his way to out right across Miller road, upon which he then was, and hit Dix road from the opposite side.
Cases on the subject, in other jurisdictions, with their varying facts, are of little help.
The commission found that the accident happened on the property of defendant, evidently basing that finding on the testimony of plaintiff that the track served defendant's plant. Something more than that was necessary to warrant the finding made. The ownership of the track may or may not have been in defendant. Under the evidence the commission could not go beyond a finding that the accident happened on a public street, as plaintiff, after leaving the premises of his employer, was crossing the railroad track which entered defendant's premises.
In Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., 184 Mich. 87, 150 N.W. 325, 326, L.R.A.1916A, 310 we pointed out two separate questions, to be determined by different tests in order to find that an injury arose out of as well as in the course of employment, as follows: “Out of' points to the cause or source of the accident, while ‘in the course of’ relates to time, place, and circumstances.'
Was plaintiff, by reason of his employment and exit from defendant's premises, subjected to a peril in the street different in kind from that of any other user of the street?
In Morey v. City of Battle Creek, 229 Mich. 650, 202 N.W. 925, 38 A.L.R. 1039, this court applied the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiley Mfg. Co. v. Wilson
...public was also exposed. See, e. g., Christian v. Chicago & I. M. Ry. Co., 412 Ill. 171, 105 N.E.2d 741 (1952); Dent v. Ford Motor Co., 275 Mich. 39, 265 N.W. 518 (1936). Finally, in Drouin v. Chelsea Silk Co., 122 Conn. 129, 187 A. 904 (1936), the employer prevailed because there the evide......
-
Daniel v. Murray Corp. of Am.
...Lipinski v. Sutton Sales Co., 220 Mich. 647, 190 N.W. 705;Stocker v. Southfield Co., 244 Mich. 13, 221 N.W. 175;Dent v. Ford Motor Co., 275 Mich. 39, 265 N.W. 518;Shane v. Alexander, 277 Mich. 85, 268 N.W. 821;Furino v. City of Lansing, 293 Mich. 211, 291 N.W. 637;Simpson v. Lee and Cady, 2......
-
Howard v. City of Detroit
...the course of employment. Lipinski v. Sutton Sales Co., 220 Mich 647 [190 N.W. 705]; Stocker v. Southfield Co., 244 Mich. 13 ; Dent v. Ford Motor Co., 275 Mich. 39 . See also 'The law of Workmen's Compensation' by Arthur Larson Vol. I, subparagraph 15, page If this Court could preceive no e......
-
Bush v. Parmenter, Forsythe, Rude & Dethmers
...are not compensable, Thomas v. Certified Refrigeration Inc., 392 Mich. 623, 631, fn. 3, 221 N.W.2d 378 (1974); Dent v. Ford Motor Co., 275 Mich. 39, 41-42, 265 N.W. 518 (1936); Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 20, 26, 148 N.W. 243 (1914), "this is not the ordinary case of an employee going to and ......