Horvath v. La Fond

Decision Date06 April 1943
Docket NumberNo. 60.,60.
Citation305 Mich. 69,8 N.W.2d 915
PartiesHORVATH et al. v. LA FOND et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Carol Horvath and others, claimants, for death of Andrew Horvath, opposed by M. A. La Fond, employer, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, insurer. From an order of the Department of Labor and Industry granting an award of compensation to claimants, the employer and insurer appeal.

Award vacated.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Before the Entire Bench.

Lowell C. Stellberger, of Detroit (Lightner, Crawford, Sweeny, Dodd & Mayer, of Detroit, of counsel), for appellants.

Roger P. O'Connor and S. Gerard Conklin, both of Detroit, for appellees.

NORTH, Justice.

Defendant, M. A. La Fond, is the owner and operator of four cigar stores in Detroit. He employed Andrew Horvath, husband of plaintiff Carol Horvath, and also one John Gaines. As the result of an assault by Horvath on Gaines, the latter fatally shot the former. Plaintiffs, as dependents, obtained an award of compensation. The employer and the Standard Accident Insurance Company, carrier of the compensation insurance risk, have appealed. The only question raised is whether the department erred in holding that Horvath's fatal injury arose out of his employment.

There is no material dispute in the testimony which discloses the following facts. Gaines seemingly was somewhat of a general service man. Some of his work was in the branch stores, the main store being on Woodward avenue. Gaines also worked in and about this main store, in the basement of which the so-called factory part of the employer's business was carried on. Part of the factory or basement work was the mixing or blending of bulk tobaccos. This was done by Gaines. Primarily Horvath's duties were those of a retail salesman in charge of the pipe department in the Woodward avenue store; but he also was charged with placing merchandise such as pipes in the stock of the branch stores. Around 11 o'clock in the forenoon of the day Horvath was shot, his employer instructed him to take some pipes to one of the branch stores. About 2 o'clock in the afternoon the employer, discovering that Horvath had not taken the pipes to the branch store, instructed Gaines to select the pipes and deliver them. After so instructing Gaines, the employer went up to his office which was located in a balcony of the store. Gaines began sorting out some of the pipes and as he was doing so, Horvath came where Gaines was working, kicked him, and told him to leave the pipes alone. Thereupon Gaines reported to the employer that Horvath had told him not to take the pipes; and the employer then called down from the balcony, evidently to Horvath or some of the other employees, and told them to get the pipes over to the branch store. Gaines then went about his own work and approximately twenty minutes later while he and another employee were in the basement at work they heard someone running down the steps to the basement, making considerable noise and approaching rather fast. This was Horvath coming down from the first floor of the store where he had been in the meantime. As he arrived at the bottom of the stairway, he looked directly at Gaines, started to swear, called him names and proceeded towards him. With his fists closed and shouting that he would teach Gaines ‘to squawk to the boss about those pipes' and that he would ‘mash’ Gaines' mouth if he did not believe it. The testimony shows that in spite of protests by Gaines, Horvath continued to approach him until he was within about two feet of Gaines when he seemingly tried to seize hold of Gaines and it appeared to Gaines that Horvath was trying to get at his throat. Horvath, glaring at Gaines, made some motions with his hands and Gaines testified he did not know whether Horvath who was coming still closer was ‘getting a knife or what he intended to do. * * * When he dropped his hand, I dropped mine. When he come up with his other hand, I come up with mine, and when I come up with mine, I had this little small pistol. Well, when he didn't stop, I guess, well, I said ‘Stop, stop. Don't do it.’ and kept saying, ‘Stop, don't do it.” It was at this point the shot was fired, resulting in Horvath's death.

The manner in which the department reached the conclusion that under the above undisputed facts Horvath's death arose out of his employment is indicated by the following from the opinion filed: ‘In our opinion, the record also clearly establishes the accident arose out of plaintiffs' decedent's employment. The assault was not provoked by any personal animosity between pl...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Crilly v. Ballou
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • July 15, 1958
    ...related in principle (Stewart v. Chrysler Corporation, 350 Mich. 596, 87 N.W.2d 117, relying upon the aggressor rule of Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69, 8 N.W.2d 915) warrants our re-examination of the problem in its The arguments against recovery in this type of case are well known. In th......
  • Daniel v. Murray Corp. of Am.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • October 10, 1949
    ...his own purpose, and his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The same rule was followed in Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69, 8 N.W.2d 915, where an award of compensation was set aside although the injury occurred on the premises of the employer and actually with......
  • In re Dillon
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • March 29, 1949
    ...P. 923;Gray's Case, 123 Me. 86, 121 A. 556;Hill v. Liberty Motor & Engineering Corp., 185 Md. 596, 45 A.2d 467,47 A.2d 43;Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69, 8 N.W.2d 915, and Jackson v. State Compensation Commissioner, 127 W.Va. 59, 31 S.E.2d ...
  • Cavalier Mfg. Co. v. Employers Ins. of Wausau
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan (US)
    • June 2, 1995
    ...an employee, as by assault and battery, and expect to limit liability exposure to the benefits afforded by the WDCA. Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich. 69, 8 N.W.2d 915 (1943); see also Harrison v. Tireman & Colfax Bump & Repair Shop, 395 Mich. 48, 232 N.W.2d 274 "True intentional torts," for wh......
  • 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