Morris v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 17 February 1948 |
| Docket Number | No. 26,Oct. Term, 1947.,26 |
| Citation | 31 N.W.2d 89,320 Mich. 372 |
| Parties | MORRIS v. FORD MOTOR CO. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE Appeal from Circuit Court, Wayne County; Clyde I. Webster, judge.
Action by Robert W. Morris against the Ford Motor Company for damages for alleged breach of duty to plaintiff as an employee of defendant. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Before the Entire Bench.
Maurice Sugar, Morton A. Eden, and Benjamin Marcus, all of Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.
Moll, Desenberg & Purdy, of Detroit, for appellee.
While working at his job in the employ of defendant, plaintiff noticed a bloating and sour condition of his stomach and went to defendant's first aid department where he received some soda and Epsom salts. Shortly thereafter he began to suffer cramps, left his work and went home. Later he underwent an operation, which disclosed a ruptured appendix. He filed a claim for workmen's compensation, alleging that he suffered an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment because of the wrongful administration of salts. The compensation commission of the department of labor and industry, relying on Stables v. General Motors Corporation, 315 Mich. 654, 24 N.W.2d 524, found that he had not sustained a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment and entered an order denying compensation, from which no appeal was taken.
Thereafter plaintiff filed suit in the Wayne county circuit court, alleging in his declaration that, under the circumstances, the administration of salts was dangerous, not in accord with sound or common medical practice and a breach of defendant's duty to plaintiff, with resultant injury and damage. Defendant moved to dismiss on the grounds that (1) plaintiff's remedy is exclusively under the Workmen's Compensation Act (see Act 245, § 4, Pub.Acts 1943, Comp.Laws Supp. 1945, § 8410, Stat.Ann.1947 Cum.Supp., § 17.144); (2) plaintiff had elected his forum, thus barring later recourse to courts of law (see 2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 8478, Stat.Ann., § 17.212); (3) plaintiff pursued his remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act to decision by the compensation commission which is res adjudicata of defendant's liability to plaintiff. The court dismissed the case on the ground that ‘if there is any liability, it must be under compensation.'
Plaintiff appeals, claiming that the case is not one covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act and that the compensation commission has no jurisdiction over it.
The employer-employee relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant and both were subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act. Plaintiff's claim for compensation alleged an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Under the statutes above noted exclusive jurisdiction over the issue thus presented is conferred upon the compensation commission and plaintiff's filing of such claim constituted a release of all claims at law arising from the injury. Whether plaintiff's injury and resultant disability were compensable under the act or not, his claim therefor was within the jurisdiction of the compensation commission, and, having proceeded before it under the act, he may not thereafter maintain an action at law. Sotonyi v. Detroit City Gas Co., 251 Mich. 393, 232 N.W. 201;Dailey v. River Raisin Paper Co., 269 Mich. 443, 257 N.W. 857;Twork v. Munising Paper Co., 275 Mich. 174, 266 N.W. 311;Cirley v. Beryllium Corp., 278 Mich. 23, 270 N.W. 202;Cell v. Yale & Towne Manufacturing Co., 281 Mich. 564, 275 N.W. 250.
Plaintiff relies on Grand Rapids Trust Co. v. Petersen Beverage Co., 219 Mich. 208, 189 N.W. 186, and Hansen v. Pere Marquette Railway Co., 267 Mich. 224, 255 N.W. 192. The Petersen case is distinguishable in that there the plaintiff was a minor, unlawfully employed, this court holding that, for that reason, he did not come...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. BOARD OF HOSPITAL MANAGERS
...v. Rose, 45 Mich. 284, 7 N.W. 875. Also, Township of Pontiac v. Featherstone, 319 Mich. 382, 29 N.W.2d 898; Morris v. Ford Motor Company, 320 Mich. 372, 31 N.W.2d 89; Fass v. City of Highland Park, 321 Mich. 156, 32 N.W.2d 375; Bostrom v. Jennings, 326 Mich. 146, 40 N.W.2d 97; and Menendez ......
-
Reed v. Yackell, Docket No. 126534. COA. No. 4.
...Corp., 329 Mich. 209, 45 N.W.2d 39 (1950); Dershowitz v. Ford Motor Co., 327 Mich. 386, 41 N.W.2d 900 (1950); Morris v. Ford Motor Co., 320 Mich. 372, 31 N.W.2d 89 (1948); Munson v. Christie, 270 Mich. 94, 258 N.W. 415 (1935); Houghtaling v. Chapman, 119 Mich.App. 828, 327 N.W.2d 375 (1982)......
-
American Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Liability Co.
...(1910); Donovan v. Curts, 245 Mich. 348, 222 N.W. 743 (1929); Mertz v. Mertz, 311 Mich. 46, 18 N.W.2d 271 (1945); Morris v. Ford Motor Co., 320 Mich. 372, 31 N.W.2d 89 (1948).These cases involve principles which are inapplicable to the facts before us. Michigan Mutual did not take any posit......
-
Menendez v. City of Detroit
...plaintiffs' capacity to sue. Cited therefor are Township of Pontiac v. Featherstone, 319 Mich. 382, 29 N.W.2d 898; Morris v. Ford Motor Co., 320 Mich. 372, 31 N.W.2d 89; and Fass v. City of Highland Park, 321 Mich. 156, 32 N.W.2d 375. These cases hold, directly to the contrary, that an appe......