Morey v. City of Battle Creek
| Decision Date | 03 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | No. 29.,29. |
| Parties | MOREY v. CITY OF BATTLE CREEK. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Rena Keagle Morey for the death of Henry Keagle, her husband, opposed by the City of Battle Creek. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Accident Board, and the defendant brings certiorari. Award set aside.
Argued before McDONALD, C. J., and CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, STEERE, FELLOWS, and WIEST, JJ. John A. Wagner, City Atty., of Battle Creek, for appellant.
E. E. Storkan, of Battle Creek, and C. S. Carney, of Kalamazoo, for appellee.
Henry Keagle, the deceased husband of plaintiff, was employed by Clarence Avery to drive one of his working teams. Clarence Avery had a contract relation with the city of Battle Creek, which bound him to furnish it teams and drivers as needed, at 85 cents an hour.
On May 11, 1923, Henry Keagle, with a team, was sent by Avery to work for the city. At 4:45 o'clock in the afternoon the officer in charge of the city work informed Keagle that there was not sufficient time to get another load of dirt, and therefore he could go home. Keagle at once left, and when about three-quarters of a mile from the place where he had been working, one of his horses was bitten by a dog, whereupon the team began to run, and while turning a sharp corner Keagle was thrown out and killed.
The contract relation between Keagle and Avery was that Keagle should receive one-half of the amount Avery received. Keagle had no contract relation with the city and Avery had not accepted the provisions of the Compensation Law.
An award was asked for, and after an arbitration hearing the claim was denied. An appeal to the full board resulted in a death award being granted against the city. It was the opinion of the board that Act 173 of the Laws of 1921 was applicable, and made the city liable.
On certiorari to this court the city contends that the act is not applicable, and that the board was in error in awarding plaintiff compensation against it.
Part 1, § 10, subd. (a), of the act referred to, provides:
‘Where any employer subject to the provisions of this act (in this section referred to as the principal), contracts with any other person (in this section referred to as the contractor), who is not subject to this act and who does not become subject to this act prior to the date of the accidental injury or death for which claim is made for the execution by or under the contractor of the whole or any part of any work undertaken by the principal, the principal shall be liable to pay to any workman employed in the execution of the work any compensation under this act which he would have been liable to pay if that workman had been immediately employed by him. * * *’ Act 173, Laws of 1921.
Under this provision it becomes necessary to determine whether the city would have been liable if Keagle had been directly employed by it.
The Compensation Law has been generally construed by this court as not applying to accidents which befell employees in going to and leaving the place of employment. Hills v. Blair, 182 Mich. 26, 148 N. W. 243;Hopkins v. Michigan Sugar Co., 184 Mich. 87, 150 N. W. 325, L. R. A. 1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. Workmen's Compensation Appeals Bd.
...supra, 69 Idaho 391, 207 P.2d 537; Johnson v. State Highway Comm. (1926), 125 Me. 443, 134 A. 564; Morey v. City of Battle Creek (1925), 229 Mich. 650, 202 N.W. 925, 38 A.L.R. 1039.7 Zenith Nat. Ins. Co. v. Workmen's Comp. App. Bd., supra, 66 Cal.2d 944, 948--949, 59 Cal.Rptr. 622, 428 P.2d......
-
Walker v. Hyde
... ... Hydraulic Engineering Co., 192 Mich. 594, ... 159 N.W. 380; City of Milwaukee v. Althoff, 156 Wis ... 68, 145 N.W. 238, L. R. A. 1916A, ... v. Spirakis, 79 Ind.App. 17, 137 ... N.E. 276; Morey v. City of Battle Creek, 229 Mich ... 650, 38 A. L. R. 1039, 202 N.W ... ...
-
Daniel v. Murray Corp. of Am.
...of employment, are not compensable, exceptions arise because of the circumstances of the particular case. Morey v. City of Battle Creek, 229 Mich. 650, 202 N.W. 925, 38 A.L.R. 1039. See, also, Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co., 192 Mich. 435, 158 N.W. 851, L.R.A.1917A, 252;Clifton v. Kroger G......
-
Phillips v. Fitzhugh Motor Co.
...personal to himself, but was incidental to his employment and in the interest of his employer.' See, also, Morey v. City of Battle Creek, 229 Mich. 650, 202 N.W. 925, 38 A.L.R. 1039; Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co., 192 Mich. 435, 158 N.W. 851, L.R.A.1917A, 252; Clifton v. Kroger Grocery & ......