Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club
| Decision Date | 08 April 1935 |
| Docket Number | No. 139.,139. |
| Citation | 260 N.W. 130,271 Mich. 107 |
| Parties | MARLOWE v. HURON MOUNTAIN CLUB et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Phillip Marlowe, claimant, opposed by Huron Mountain Club, employer, and Travelers' Insurance Company, insurance carrier. From an award of compensation by the Department of Labor and Industries, employer and insurance carrier appeal.
Award vacated.
Argued before the Entire Bench.
Miller, Eldredge & Eldredge, of Marquette, for appellants.
Daniel P. O'Brien, of Detroit, for appellee.
Plaintiff, 37 years of age, and prior to the happening of the events out of which this case arises apparently a strong, able-bodied man, was employed by the Huron Mountain Club as a truck driver, handling baggage and supplies, and during part of the year handling the mail to and from the railroad depots at Big Bay and Marquette. In the usual and ordinary course of his employment, he handled trunks weighing 200 pounds and more; laundry baskets as heavy; coal in bags, weighing approximately 80 pounds each; quarters of beef; ice cream freezers; groceries; and other supplies. September 5, 1932, he suffered a stroke of apoplexy, resulting in partial paralysis and total disability. On the day in question, plaintiff went to Marquette in the morning and returned to Big Bay, where he met one Krieg who in the summer handled the club mail. Krieg was to be delayed at Big Bay awaiting reservations for club members and, to avoid delay in delivery of the club mail, suggested plaintiff take the mail to the club; whereupon it was loaded on plaintiff's truck, and plaintiff went to the clubhouse about ten miles from Big Bay. There were six or seven mail sacks and plaintiff unloaded and delivered these sacks at the club. On the last trip to the truck, he handled two heavy mail sacks, and while doing so suddenly collapsed and the mail sacks fell to the floor.
The sole question is whether there was evidence plaintiff received a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Was there any evidence that plaintiff's injury was the result of an accident, or was the injury suffered one arising from the usual occurrences in employment, one which was the result of plaintiff's physical condition and due neither to his employment nor to accident?
Plaintiff suffered from a stroke of apoplexy not expected and probably unthought of-an unexpected occurrence which produced injury. He voluntarily took the mail sacks at Big Bay on his truck for delivery at the clubhouse. His doing so was either within or without the scope of his employment. If plaintiff is to recover at all, it must be conceded his taking and delivery of these mail sacks was within the scope of his employment. If the taking at Big Bay and delivery at the clubhouse of these mail sacks of the Huron Mountain Club was within the scope of his employment, the question arises whether he suffered an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment. Plaintiff was a strong and apparently ablebodied and reliable man and to the casual observer appeared in good health. In accepting and delivering these mail sacks, he was doing and performing the precise services he desired and intended to do. The manner of handling these mail sacks was in plaintiff's discretion. There is no proof he stumbled, slipped, fell, or suffered any undue or unexpected strain, or did anything which compelled him to make unexpected or violent movements due to any miscalculation or chance on his part. He received no blow, jar, or shock of any kind, expected or unexpected, and there was nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in his handling of the mail sacks, and certainly nothing which suggested, dictated, or directed he should carry two of them at a time.
It is conceded if there is any evidence to support the claim of accidental injury within the meaning of the statute, he is entitled to recover. Many cases are cited to sustain the finding of the Department of Labor and Industry; and there are an equal number of cases cited to indicated he is not entitled to recover.
In Schroetke v. Jackson-Church Co., 193 Mich. 616, 160 N. W. 383, L. R. A. 1917D, 64, it is said the Michigan act was borrowed from the English act, and it was necessary to determine what was personal injury by death or by accident. The court quoted with approval Hensey v. White, [1900] 1 Q. B. Div. 481, where it was said, ‘the idea of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Twork v. Munising Paper Co.
...798;Wiio v. Quincy Mining Co., 217 Mich. 476, 187 N.W. 249;Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady, 254 Mich. 218, 236 N.W. 784;Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club, 271 Mich. 107, 260 N.W. 130;Echord v. Rush, 124 Kan. 521, 261 P. 820;Meade-Fiber Corporation v. Starnes, 147 Tenn. 362, 247 S.W. 989;Gunter v. Sha......
-
Sheppard v. Michigan Nat. Bank
...v. Bryant & Detwiler Co., 200 Mich. 350, 167 N.W. 36; Sinkiewicz v. Lee & Cady, 254 Mich. 218, 236 N.W. 784; Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club, 271 Mich. 107, 260 N.W. 130; Williams v. National Cash Register Co., 272 Mich. 553, 262 N.W. 306; Waites v. Briggs Manufacturing Co., 280 Mich. 185, 2......
-
Lahti v. Fosterling
...matter of practice, is properly allowed. This was done in the instant case and apparently is not questioned. See Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club, 271 Mich. 107, 112, 260 N.W. 130; Tomes v. General Motors Corporation, 318 Mich. 168, 173, 174, 27 N.W.2d Payment by an employer of expenses for h......
-
Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co v. Griggs, 13244.
...The Missouri statute differs from the Georgia statute in defining the words "injury" and "accident." In Marlowe v. Huron Mountain Club, 271 Mich. 107, 260 N.W. 130, 132, the injured employee, an apparently strong, able-bodied man, thirty-seven years of age, was employed as a truck-driver, h......