Konopka v. Jackson Cnty. Rd. Comm'n, 56.

• Decision Date: 07 January 1935
• Docket Number: No. 56.,56.
• Citation: 270 Mich. 174,258 N.W. 429
• Parties: KONOPKA et al. v. JACKSON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

270 Mich. 174

258 N.W. 429

KONOPKA et al.

v.JACKSON COUNTY ROAD COMMISSION et al.

No. 56.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Jan. 7, 1935.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Frances Konopka, widow, and others, for the death of Anthony Konopka, opposed by the Jackson County Road Commission, employer, and the Michigan Mutual Liability Company, insurer. To review an award of the Department of Labor and Industry in favor of claimants, the employer and insurer appeal.

Affirmed.

Appeal from the Department of Labor and Industry.

Argued before the Entire Bench.

L. J. Carey and Geo. J. Cooper, both of Detroit, for appellants.

Maxwell F. Badgley, of Jackson (Robert L. Drake, of Jackson, of counsel), for appellees.

NORTH, Justice.

This is an appeal by the defendants in a compensation case in which an award was made to the plaintiffs who are the widow and three minor children of the deceased employee. This man, Anthony Konopka, received a slip from the welfare agency in Jackson, Mich., directing him to go to the highway commission for an assignment of work. He did so and was assigned to highway work then being done by the commission some 13 or 14 miles west of Jackson. Together with other employees, Konopka reported for work at the offices and warehouse of the highway commission a little after 7 o'clock in the morning. These men got into trucks and were taken to the place of work. Some of the trucks were owned by the highway commission and some by men who were hired with their trucks incident to this highway work. The men began at 8 o'clock in the morning and continued to work until 4 in the afternoon, with a half hour off for the noonday lunch. At the close of the day's work, the men again got into trucks and were driven back to Jackson. This manner of going to and from the work was not compulsory, but seems to have been the general method prevalent with Konopka and his fellow employees. While making the return trip on the afternoon of January 30, 1933, the truck in which Konopka was riding skidded, turned completely around in the highway, and finally was stopped by striking a tree. Konopka was thrown from the truck and received injuries from which he died. This truck was owned by another employee who used it in connection with the highway work. While it was not expressly made a part of the employment of this man with his truck that he should transport other employees to and from the place of work, it appears that such was an established custom.

The sole question presented by this appeal is whether an accident resulting in the injury of an employee, while he is being conveyed from the place where he works to his home in the manner here disclosed, is an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. The law seems rather definitely settled that in cases where the contract of employment expressly includes conveyance of the employee to or from his place of work, an accident arising out of such transportation and resulting in an injury to the employee is compensable. It is so held because such an accident arises both out of and in the course of the employment. Schneider's Workmen's Compensation Law (2d Ed.) § 265. We think both on reason and on respectable authority the holding should be the same where, as in this case, incident to the employment contract it is contemplated and understood by both the employer and the employee that the former will transport the latter to or from the place where the work is done. And especially should such be the rule when under a uniform course of conduct the employer does so convey the employee. We do not think the legal aspect is affected by the fact that the employee may at his option adopt other means of conveyance. The arrangement for conveyance of the employee by the employer, when made, is obviously for their mutual advantage; and from the inception of the journey the employee in a very large sense is under the control of the employer. Surely the safety or the peril of the journey is within the control of the employer. The transportation is such an essential incident of the employment as to be a part of it. Hence, if an accident arises out of the transportation so provided, it is an accident arisingout of and in the course of the employment. And under the circumstances presented here, it does not seem that a different legal aspect was presented merely because the transportation was in a truck owned and operated by another employee rather than in a truck belonging to and operated by the employer. The test is whether, under the contract of employment, construed in the...