Fields v. G.M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 65

Decision Date07 January 1952
Docket NumberNo. 65,65
Citation332 Mich. 113,50 N.W.2d 738
PartiesFIELDS v. G. M. BRASS & ALUMINUM FOUNDRY CO. et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Robert S. Feldman, Benton Harbor, for plaintiff and appellee.

L. J. Carey and George J. Cooper, Detroit, for defendants and appellants.

Before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.

BOYLES, Justice.

Plaintiff was awarded workmen's compensation by the commission and the defendants appeal. The only question involved is whether plaintiff suffered a disablement within the meaning of the act. On April 15, 1949, plaintiff while employed by the defendant foundry company became totally disabled from performing the work in which he was engaged, namely, as a bench molder lifting and carrying molds for the defendant brass and aluminum foundry company. The molds weighed from 20 to 300 pounds. He handled from 20 to 40 molds a day and had help only in handling the heavier molds weighing more than 100 pounds.

Plaintiff had slipped and injured his back in 1940 while working for a former employer, was obliged to quit work and was operated on in 1942 for removal of an intervertebral disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of his spine. After the operation he resumed lighter work without any apparent disability. About 3 or 4 years later he again began to do heavy lifting in the foundry of the defendant company and had no trouble with his back for several months until, in 1946, his back started to become painful. The pain increased gradually until April of 1949 when he had to quit working. There was undisputed medical testimony to the effect that the plaintiff's disablement was the result of the removal of the disc between the fourth and fifth lumbar vertebrae of his spine, and that the loss of the cushion between these bones resulted in their being compressed together, causing pain because of his heavy lifting of the molds. In his work it was necessary for plaintiff to bend over, lift the molds and carry them a short distance, resulting in more strain on his back than that which would attend employment in general. He testified:

'Q. Tell us in your own words so we laymen can understand just what bench molding consists of. A. Well, what I was doing mostly was plate molding. It consisted of a cope and drag and a plate. You shovel into both parts and remove the plate and set your cores and put your mold on the floor.

'Q. Did you have to turn the molds over? A. Yes, sir.

* * *

* * *

'A. * * * I was doing mostly plate molding. You have a plate in between and you lift your cope off after you have rammed up and set it on your bench and then remove your plate and set your cores. Then lift your cope and put it back onto your drag. That is called closing your mold. Then you set your mold from the bench to the floor.

'Q. You had to lift the mold from the bench to the floor? A. Yes.

'Q. You had to handle the full weight of the mold during that operation? A. Yes, the full weight.

'Q. How big were the molds? A. They varied. I would say from 20 to 200 to 300 pounds.

'Q. These big molds weighed a couple of hundred pounds, would you have to lift those yourself? A. I lifted the cope by myself. When it come to setting them on the floor, I had to have help.

'Q. How many of those molds did you handle a day? A. Well, from 20 to 40 molds a day.

'Q. You never run any higher than that? A. No, I don't think I did, not on the large molds like that I never did.

'Q. Did you have to carry those molds any distance? A. Oh, about 8 to 10 feet, maybe 15 feet sometimes. You had a certain stretch in back of your bench you worked. That was the line you had. Maybe you would carry over into the next man's floor a little bit. It was according to what you were running; it varied.

'Q. Somebody else took them off the floor and took them away? A. No, sir; I helped dump my own molds.

'Q. Did you help to do that? A. Yes.

'Q. When you were dumping your own molds, what did...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 35
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 2 Abril 1956
    ...Home, 330 Mich. 392, 47 N.W.2d 658; Weaver v. General Motors Corporation, 330 Mich. 404, 47 N.W.2d 665; Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738; Arnold v. Ogle Construction Co., 333 Mich. 652, 53 N.W.2d We should add to that list those other decisions wher......
  • Coombe v. Penegor
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 10 Junio 1957
    ...742; Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, C., W. & C. Foundry Co., 329 Mich. 273, 45 N.W.2d 286; Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738; Gibbs v. Motor Wheel Corp., 333 Mich. 617, 53 N.W.2d 573, and Kepsel v. McCready & Sons, 345 Mich. 335, 76 N......
  • Dressler v. Grand Rapids Die Casting Corp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 27 Febrero 1978
    ...found to be occupational diseases. Smith v. Lawrence Baking Co., 370 Mich. 169, 121 N.W.2d 684 (1963); Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738 (1952); Underwood v. National Motor Castings Division, Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., 329 Mich. 273, 45 N.......
  • Adkins v. Rives Plating Corp.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • 27 Noviembre 1953
    ...supported by the previously quoted testimony of plaintiff himself. Appellants have cited no authority save Fields v. G. M. Brass & Aluminum Foundry Co., 332 Mich. 113, 50 N.W.2d 738, a case where an award of compensation was affirmed, the original injury having rendered the employee in ques......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT