Hammons v. Franzblau

• Decision Date: 03 December 1951
• Docket Number: No. 41,41
• Citation: 331 Mich. 572,50 N.W.2d 161
• Parties: HAMMONS v. FRANZBLAU.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 161

50 N.W.2d 161

331 Mich. 572

HAMMONS v. FRANZBLAU.

No. 41.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 3, 1951.

Marcus, Kelman & Loria, Detroit, for appellant.

James M. Wienner, Detroit, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.

BUSHNELL, Justice.

Plaintiff Moe Hammons agrees with the statement of facts of the workmen's compensation commission.

'Defendant's business is, primarily, that of growing apples and cherries, a portion of which are sold on the premises. The plaintiff's job involved picking apples and placing them in crates, and it is conceded that while so engaged he suffered an injury to his left leg on October 15, 1949.'

Defendant Herman Franzblau, doing business as Geddes Fruit Farm, would add to this statement that the commission also found, as a matter of fact, that appellee's 'enterprise required fertilizing and tilling of the soil and attention to the growing produce thereof.'

The parties agree that the question for decision is: 'Were the plaintiff and defendant subject to the workmen's compensation act?'

The commission held that plaintiff was a 'farm laborer,' and that since his employer 'had not assumed liability for compensation and benefits imposed by this act through the purchase and acceptance of a valid compensation insurance policy on or before plaintiff's injury, the defendant was not subject to the workmen's compensation law on October 15, 1949.' The award of the deputy commissioner denying compensation was affirmed.

In 1937, part 7, relating to occupational diseases, was added to the workmen's compensation law. Section 13 thereof, C.L.1948, § 417.13, Stat.Ann. § 17.230(2), contains this language: 'This act shall not apply to any employer or employe in agriculture industry or in the nursery or orchard business, or to any labor incidental to farming, including repairs on buildings and other property in connection therewith.'

When the act became compulsory in 1943, section 2a was added to part 1, C.L.1948, § 411.2a, as amended by P.A.1949, No. 238, Stat.Ann.1950 Rev. § 17.142(1): 'This act, excepting section 1 hereof, shall not apply to employers who regularly employ less than 4 employes at 1 time nor to demestic servants or farm laborers: * * *.' Subsequent language provides how such employers may come under the act if they desire.

The primary question for decision is the meaning of the words 'farm laborer' as used in section 2a of part 1.

Those Michigan cases which deal with a similar question are of little aid in our determination here because of their wholly different fact situations. See Shafer v. Parke, Davis & Co., 192 Mich. 577, 159 N.W. 304; Roush v. Heffelbower, 225 Mich. 664, 196 N.W. 185, 35 A.L.R. 196; Carroll v. General Necessities Corporation, 223 Mich. 541, 207 N.W. 831; and Harper v. Lowe, 272 Mich. 331, 262 N.W. 260. See, also, cases annotated in 13 A.L.R. 955 and 140 A.L.R. 401.

It is well established that words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from context or otherwise in the statute that a different sense was intended. People v. Labbe, 202 Mich. 513, 168 N.W. 451, and Lucier v. Pansy Hosiery Co., Inc., 286 Mich. 585, 282 N.W. 254. There is nothing in this statute to indicate that the legislature...