Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co.

Decision Date08 September 1954
Docket NumberNo. 18,18
PartiesClarence NICHOLS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CENTRAL CRATE & BOX COMPANY, and Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Alexander, Cholette, Buchanan, Perkins & Conklin, Grand Rapids (Edward D. Wells, Grand Rapids, of counsel), for defendants and appellants.

Marcus, McCroskey & Finucan, Muskegon, for plaintiff and appellee.

Before The Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

Plaintiff, 73 years of age, worked for defendant as head sawyer for eight days. His job consisted largely of pushing a lever back and forth to operate a carriage on a saw and of drawing logs by tractor from a yard to skids leading to the saw. Generally, some other employee placed the logs on the skids so that they could roll down to the saw. On the last day of his employment, when no other employee was immediately available for that purpose, plaintiff undertook to slide or roll a log onto the skids. For that purpose he took a cant hook and attempted to raise the log from the ground with a steady pull, but it did not come, so then he gave it a jerk and there was more of a load than he had anticipated and it 'came up solid'. At that instant he felt as if a beebee shot had hit him in the back of the head. He continued working the rest of the day. The next morning when he awoke it was discovered that he was partially paralyzed due to a stroke. According to medical testimony he had had a pre-existing bradycardia and arteriosclerosis and the strain involved in or resulting from plaintiff's attempt to move the log with a cant hook could have aggravated that pre-existing physical condition to cause a stroke. The workmen's compensation commission found that plaintiff had sustained an accidental injury in that connection and awarded compensation accordingly. Defendants appeal, contending that plaintiff did not suffer an accident.

Plaintiff says that a disability under part 2 of the act is compensable when due to a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, even though not caused by accidental means and, further, that if an accident be deemed prerequisite as an aggravation of a pre-existing physical condition, that requirement is met if the result suffered by plaintiff is unexpected, unusual or fortuitous even though the cause thereof was not. Such theories run counter to out holdings in Hagopian v. City of Highland Park, 313 Mich. 608, 22 N.W.2d 116; May v. A. H. Powell Lumber Co., 335 Mich. 420, 56 N.W.2d 242; McGregor v. Michigan Conservation Department, 338 Mich. 93, 61 N.W.2d 68; Poindexter v. Department of Conservation, 316 Mich. 235, 25 N.W.2d 182; Arnold v. Ogle Construction Co., 333 Mich. 652, 53 N.W.2d 655; O'Neil v. W. R. Spencer Grocer Co., 316 Mich. 320, 25 N.W.2d 213. In all of these cases it was held that to be compensable there must be an accident or fortuitous event which aggravates the pre-existing physical condition to cause a disability. Typical is the statement in Arnold [333 Mich. 652, 53 N.W.2d 660] that 'the aggravation of a previously existing nonoccupational disease is not compensable under part 2 of the workmen's compensation law unless the aggravating injury is accidental in character.' Plaintiff relies on Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., 191 Mich. 122, 157 N.W. 437, 439. This Court there said:

'It is not sufficient that there be an unusual and unanticipated result; the means must be accidental--involuntary and unintended. There must, too, be some proximate connection between accidental means and the injurious result.'

Was plaintiff's pre-existing condition aggravated by an accident or fortuitous event arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant? Plaintiff says yes, contending that there were two fortuitous events of that character, namely (1) that plaintiff was doing what ordinarily had been done by some other employee when he attempted to move the log onto the skids; (2) that the log did not respond to plaintiff's cant hook operation as he had expected. In this connection plaintiff cites 18 Michigan cases, typical of which are the following: Grove v. Michigan Paper Co., 184 Mich. 449. 151 N.W. 554; La Veck v. Parke Davis & Co., 190 Mich. 604, 157 N.W. 72, L.R.A.1919D, 1277; Robbins v. Original Gas Engine Co., 191 Mich. 122, 157 N.W. 437; Schroetke v Jackson-Church Co., 193 Mich. 616, 160 N.W. 383, L.R.A.1917D, 64; St. Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House, 211 Mich. 285, 178 N.W. 705; Watson v. Publix Riviera Theatre, 255 Mich. 115, 237 N.W. 541; Smallegan v. Smallegan & Sons, 268 Mich. 245, 256 N.W. 435; Schlange v. Briggs Manufacturing Co., 326 Mich. 552, 40 N.W.2d 454. In Grove, St. Clair and Smallegan the plaintiff was doing the work ordinarily done by two or more men. In La Veck plaintiff had been subjected to unusual and excessive heat. In Robbins the Court found that while plaintiff and another were pulling and lifting a 600 pound engine the plaintiff 'was suddenly, and accidentally, put at a disadvantage by the act of his fellow workman and the sticking of the engine on the concrete floor'. In Schroetke plaintiff died of heart failure resulting from nervous shock caused by the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 35
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1956
    ... ... Pound's recent criticism? Writing in 15 NACCA Law Journal, 53, 54, below careful review of Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co., 340 Mich. 232, 65 N.W.2d 706, he said this under heading 'Comment': ... ...
  • Sheppard v. Michigan Nat. Bank
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1957
    ...to cover aggravation of a pre-existing disease without an accident or fortuitous event'). The recent case of Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co., 340 Mich. 232, 65 N.W.2d 706, 707, is equally 'In all of these cases it was held that to be compensable there must be an accident or fortuitous ev......
  • Coombe v. Penegor
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • June 10, 1957
    ...in the general field of common labor' (McGregor v. Conservation Dept., 338 Mich. 93, 61 N.W.2d 68, 69; Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co., 340 Mich. 232, 65 N.W. 2d 706; Simpson v. Matthes, 343 Mich. 125, 72 N.W.2d 64). Defendants ask that we apply such On opinions aimed toward upholding co......
  • Wieda v. American Box Board Co., 17
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • October 3, 1955
    ... ...         The foregoing statement was quoted by this Court in the recent decision in Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co., 340 Mich. 232, 235, 65 N.W.2d 706. See, also Kutschmar v. Briggs ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT