Johnson v. Arby's Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 57330 |
| Citation | 323 N.W.2d 427,116 Mich.App. 425 |
| Parties | Gregory B. JOHNSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ARBY'S INCORPORATED, an Ohio corporation, and David Duke, Defendants-Appellees. 116 Mich.App. 425, 323 N.W.2d 427 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[116 MICHAPP 427] Frank R. Langton & Associates, P. C. by Barry Sigman, Warren, for plaintiff-appellant.
Lacey & Jones by Stephen J. Schwartz, Detroit, for defendant-appellee Arby's Inc.
Before CYNAR, P. J., and KELLY and RILEY, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a Wayne County Circuit Court order granting accelerated judgment for defendant Arby's Inc., and from another order dismissing plaintiff's action against defendant Duke.
On September 18, 1980, plaintiff filed a suit in Wayne County Circuit Court, naming David Duke and Arby's Inc., as codefendants. Plaintiff alleged that Duke committed an assault and battery upon him at a company picnic sponsored by Arby's for its employees, resulting in physical, mental and emotional damages. Arby's allegedly was negligent in that it failed to provide a safe premises for the picnic and failed to provide adequate supervision and management of the picnic.
Plaintiff was an assistant manager of an Arby's fast-food franchise in Troy, Michigan, and defendant Duke was an employee at another Arby's [116 MICHAPP 428] store. On August 17, 1980, defendant Arby's sponsored a picnic at Huron Metro Park for its management personnel from the local region and their guests. Attendance at the picnic was apparently voluntary, although an affidavit in support of the motion by Arby's for accelerated judgment stated that attendance was strongly encouraged, that the social aspect of the picnic was minor, and that there was much discussion of Arby's work policies at the picnic. Arby's provided food and beverages, including free beer. Plaintiff claims that Duke became intoxicated and hostile and as a result stabbed him in the neck, chin and arm causing nerve damage and serious scarring and disfigurement. Plaintiff had never met nor worked with Duke prior to the day in question.
In its answer, Arby's raised the affirmative defense that plaintiff's complaint had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, in that plaintiff's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, M.C.L. Sec. 418.131; M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(131). Plaintiff then moved for partial summary judgment or to strike Arby's affirmative defense. Arby's filed a response to plaintiff's motion as well as its own alternative motion for accelerated or summary judgment, contending that the action was barred as a matter of law.
The trial court denied plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's affirmative defense and granted defendant's motion for accelerated judgment. On April 10, 1981, an order of summary judgment was entered dismissing plaintiff's suit against defendant Duke and Duke's counterclaim against plaintiff on the ground that, as co-employees of Arby's, their claims against each other would be barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act.
[116 MICHAPP 429] Plaintiff now brings this appeal.
The trial court granted accelerated judgment for Arby's in the instant case, finding that there was no dispute as to any material fact and that there were sufficient employment-related characteristics to the picnic so as to bring plaintiff's injuries within the scope of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, thereby barring an independent civil tort action.
Our review of the record shows that there was a dispute between the parties as to the nature of the function at which the stabbing incident took place. Plaintiff contends that the picnic was a purely social event given for the benefit of the employees who were invited while defendant contends that substantial business-related benefits were to be derived from the gathering.
Section 131 of the Worker's Disability Compensation Act provides:
[116 MICHAPP 430] M.C.L. Sec. 418.841; M.S.A. Sec. 17.237(841) provides:
An action is precluded by Sec. 131 if it seeks recovery for a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment and if the suit is based upon the employer-employee relationship between the parties. MCL 418.301; MSA 17.237(301), Bednarski v. General Motors Corp., 88 Mich.App. 482, 484, 276 N.W.2d 624 (1979); Peoples v. Chrysler Corp., 98 Mich.App. 277, 296 N.W.2d 237 (1980).
Numerous Michigan cases have enforced the principle that issues concerning injuries and whether they arose out of and in the course of the employment relationship are exclusively within the purview of the Bureau of Workers' Disability Compensation (Bureau). For example, in Sewell v. Bathey Manufacturing Co., 103 Mich.App. 732, 303 N.W.2d 876 (1981), this Court stated:
Accord, Bednarski, supra; Cowan v. Federal-Mogul Corp., 86 Mich.App. 619, 621, 273 N.W.2d 487 (1977); [116 MICHAPP 431] Herman v. Theis, 10 Mich.App. 684, 160 N.W.2d 365 (1968).
Exclusive jurisdiction lies with the Bureau even though plaintiff's complaint does not allege or rely on an employment relationship between the parties. Bednarski, supra; Dixon v. Sype, 92 Mich.App. 144, 284 N.W.2d 514 (1979).
The only exception to the Bureau's exclusive jurisdiction is where it is obvious that the cause of action is not based on the employer-employee relationship. In such cases, the circuit court does have authority to reject the claimed applicability of the exclusive remedy provision. Panagos v. North Detroit General Hospital, 35 Mich.App. 554, 559, 192 N.W.2d 542 (1971); Modeen v. Consumers Power Co., 384 Mich. 354, 184 N.W.2d 197 (1971).
We cannot agree with the trial court in the instant case that, as a matter of law, the injuries in question are compensable under the act.
Accordingly, we hold that the trial court erred in deciding that the alleged injury arose out of and in the course of the employment relationship. That question must first be decided by the Bureau. We reverse the circuit court's order in that respect and remand the matter to the circuit court. Plaintiff shall, within 30 days of the release date of this opinion, file with the Bureau an application for a hearing on the question in controversy. If such application is timely filed, the circuit court shall hold the instant action in abeyance pending the decision of the Bureau. If the Bureau determines that plaintiff's injuries were suffered in the course of his employment, or if plaintiff fails to apply for a Bureau determination within 30 days or to seek review of this decision in the Supreme Court in timely fashion, the accelerated judgment of dismissal in the circuit court shall stand affirmed but [116 MICHAPP 432] without prejudice for the reasons stated in this opinion. If the Bureau finds the injuries not to be work-related, the circuit court action may proceed. See Dixon, supra, 92 Mich.App. at 150, 284 N.W.2d 514.
Although it was not initially raised by the parties, we requested submission of supplemental briefs on the question of the applicability of a recent amendment of M.C.L. 418.301(3); M.S.A. 17.237(301)(3). That amendment provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sewell v. Clearing Mach. Corp.
...after being given marijuana-laced brownies by a fellow employee were suffered in the course of employment); Johnson v. Arby's, Inc., 116 Mich.App. 425, 323 N.W.2d 427 (1982) (whether injuries suffered when assaulted by a fellow employee at company picnic were suffered in the course of emplo......
-
Genson v. Bofors-Lakeway, Inc.
...92 Mich.App. 144, 284 N.W.2d 514 (1979); Sewell v. Bathey Mfg. Co., 103 Mich.App. 732, 303 N.W.2d 876 (1981); Johnson v. Arby's, Inc., 116 Mich.App. 425, 323 N.W.2d 427 (1982). Only cases which are based on a different relationship between the parties and in which it is clear that the emplo......
-
Borchardt-Spicer v. G.A.F. Corp.
...Brown was not acting in the course of his employment at the time he inflicted the injuries. See, for example, Johnson v. Arby's, Inc., 116 Mich.App. 425, 433, 323 N.W.2d 427 (1982). However, although plaintiffs joined Brown as a defendant, the relief requested in plaintiffs' complaint does ......
-
Mack v. Strategic Materials, Inc
...v. Burger King, 206 MicLApp. 409, 522 N.W.2d 650 (1994) (injured on day off while dining as retail customer); Johnson v. Arby's, Inc., 116 Mich.App. 425, 323 N.W.2d 427 (1982) (injured while at company picnic). The rule that a trial court cannot have subject matter jurisdiction until the Wo......