Lemanski v. Frimberger Co.

• Decision Date: 26 February 1971
• Docket Number: Docket No. 9844,No. 3,3
• Citation: Lemanski v. Frimberger Co., 187 N.W.2d 498, 31 Mich.App. 285 (Mich. App. 1971)
• Parties: Robert W. LEMANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FRIMBERGER COMPANY and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Defendant-Appellant
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 498

187 N.W.2d 498

31 Mich.App. 285

Robert W. LEMANSKI, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.FRIMBERGER COMPANY and United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 9844.

Court of Appeals of Michigan, Division No. 3.

Feb. 26, 1971.

Released for Publication June 10, 1971.

A. T. Lippert, Jr., Saginaw, for defendant-appellant.

T. L. Majoros, Saginaw, for plaintiff-appellee.

Before QUINN, P.J., and McGREGOR and O'HARA, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, a journeyman sheet metal worker and a resident of Saginaw, was severely injured in an automobile collision on his way to a job site in Mount Pleasant.He was permanently and totally disabled due to paralysis of two limbs and brain damage.Under his employment contract, plaintiff had been paid for travel to and form the job site, 60 miles from Saginaw, at a rate of ten cents per mile.

The workmen's compensation hearing referee found that plaintiff had suffered a compensable injury during the course of his employment; defendants appealed and the appeal board affirmed stating:

'Defendant's position is that this is merely a going to and from work situation and therefore excluded from coverage.This board does not agree.The payment of mileage pursuant to agreement is obviously intended to cover a special situation entailing more than a mere trip between home and shop and is a recognition that this employment has placed demands outside the ordinary on plaintiff in order to fulfill the requirements of his job for defendant, that highway travel is a necessary and routine part of the work assigned.'

The questions raised by defendants on appeal are:

'Was the plaintiff in the course of his employment at the time he received a personal injury?

Did the plaintiff receive a personal injury arising out of his employment?'

These questions do not properly state the factors which control our decision.Proximate...