McVicar v. Harper Hosp.

• Decision Date: 03 December 1945
• Docket Number: No. 88.,88.
• Citation: 20 N.W.2d 806,313 Mich. 48
• Parties: McVICAR et al. v. HARPER HOSPITAL.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

313 Mich. 48

20 N.W.2d 806

McVICAR et al.

v.HARPER HOSPITAL.

No. 88.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 3, 1945.

Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Anna McVicar, widow and Madeline McVicar, minor dependent, for compensation for the death of Neil McVicar, employee, opposed by the Harper Hospital, employer. From an award of the Department of Labor and Industry granting compensation, the employer appeals.

Affirmed.

Before the Entire Bench.

Lewis & Watkins, of Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Doelle, Starkey & Jones, of Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

BOYLES, Justice.

Plaintiffs are the widow and minor child of one Neil McVicar, who came to his death while an employee of the defendant, The Harper Hospital. The department of labor and industry awarded dependency compensation and funeral expenses to plaintiffs, finding that Mr. McVicar died from electrocution arising out of and in the course of his employment. For reversal the defendant claims that death was not caused by electrocution but was due to natural causes-heat prostration and cardiac failure. The question for decision is whether there was any competent evidence to support the findings of fact by the department and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom.

Neil McVicar, 63 years old at the time of his death, had been employed by the defendant about 18 months. He seemed to be in good health, was not under any treatment by any doctor, and had made no complaint about any physical ailments. His duties at Harper Hospital were those of a maintenance man, to help fire and pull out ashes in the furnace room, replace electric lights and fuses, maintain plumbing, fix stopped sinks, check leaks, change faucets, answer service calls for such maintenance work. On the day of his death, August 11, 1944, he went to work at 3 p. m. seemingly in good health. It was a hot day. About 6 p. m. something caused some ‘dummy waiters' used to convey food from the main kitchen up to a service kitchen to stop working. The dummy waiters were powered by electric motors. A service call was made and Mr. McVicar promptly responded. The electric fuses, motors, switch, et cetera, were in a ‘cubbyhole’ reached through a trap door in the ceiling of the service kitchen. He had to use a stepladder to reach the trap door in the ceiling, about 8 feet above the floor. The trap door when open was 17 1/2 inches wide by 34 inches long, opening into a little room or cubbyhole 6 feet 3 inches wide, 40 inches high, 5 feet 2 inches deep. Inside were two electric motors, 2-horse, 3-phase, 220 volts, which operated the dummy waiters. The cubbyhole had metal frames, steel frames to carry the motors and dummy waiters. There were fuses inside the cubbyhole, to remove which a fuse puller or pliers was used. Mr. McVicar climbed up, sat in the cubbyhole on the metal framework with his feet hanging down outside. In that position he could reach the fuses and the wire terminals inside the cubbyhole. Inside were live electric contacts carrying 220 volts within his reach when he attempted to ascertain the trouble. A student dietitian, who five minutes later found that the dummy waiters in the other end of the dining room were not working, testified she saw Mr. McVicar ‘sitting up there in the cubbyhole’ with his legs hanging down, tried to call him, that he did not answer, that she climbed up on the ladder and hit his foot to get his attention, he made no response, help was called and they took him down, dead. Only about 10 minutes had elapsed between the time the service call was put in for Mr. McVicar and the time when he was found dead.

A post mortem was performed. There were no signs of a burn. A physician present at the post mortem testified:

‘A. * * * Signs pointed to heat exhaustion rather than electrocution, although electrocution cannot be entirely ruled out. It is evident that this man did not die from any ordinary natural cause, inasmuch as there was no lesion of the heart or brain, or the left part of him, rather. No lesion of the heart or brain to account for it. In other words, that note was made because when we did this post mortem the question of electrocution was present, and the question of electrocution is not decided by the post mortem. In other words, we know that he had some heat exhaustion, but whether or not he was electrocuted, the autopsy does not reveal.

‘Q. That is why a note was put in the hospital findings indicating electrocution? A. There was none unless there is a burn. A majority of cases we get electric current and don't get a burn. Occasionally there is an electric burn. That, of course, is a finding that is positive, and when we find it, it is of...