Peters v. Mich. State Coll.

Decision Date16 February 1948
Docket NumberNo. 65.,65.
Citation30 N.W.2d 854,320 Mich. 243
PartiesPETERS v. MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE et al.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from Compensation Commission of Department of Labor and Industry.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Robert W. Peters, employee, opposed by the Michigan State College, under the control and general supervision of the State Board of Agriculture, employer. From an order of the Compensation Commission of the Department of Labor and Industry, denying the employer's motion for review of the employee's claim and remanding the case to a deputy commissioner for hearing on the merits, the employer appeals.

Affirmed by divided court.

Before the Entire Bench.

Shields, Ballard, Jennings & Bishop, of Lansing, for appellant.

Raymond H. Rapaport, of Lansing, for appellee.

REID, Justice.

On April 23, 1946, plaintiff Robert W. Peters filed an application for hearing and adjustment of claim as an employee of Michigan State College, which is under the control and general supervision of the State board of agriculture, which board is hereinafter referred to as defendant, alleging that he suffered a personal injury on February 12, 1946, which arose out of and in the course of his employment.

On May 4, 1946, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's application for hearing and adjustment of claim on the ground that defendant, not having elected to become subject to the Michigan workmen's compensation act and amendments thereto, was not subject to the provisions of said act. A deputy commissioner entered an order denying the motion.

On July 10, 1946, the defendant applied to the compensation commission of the department of labor and industry for review of claim. The commission on January 9, 1947, pursuant to opinion simultaneously filed, entered its order denying the defendant's motion, and remanded the case to a deputy commissioner to be heard on its merits. From this order (on leave being granted) defendant appeals.

The sole issue presented is whether the defendant, a constitutional corporation, is subject to the provisions of the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended.

Pt. 1, § 2, of the act, 2 Comp.Laws 1929 § 8408, as amended by Act No. 245, Pub.Acts 1943, Comp.Laws Supp.1945, § 8408, Stat.Ann.1946 Cum.Supp. § 17.142, in part reads as follows: Sec. 2. On and after the effective date of this section, every employer, public and private, and every employe, unless herein otherwise specifically provided, shall be subject to the provisions of this act and shall be bound thereby.'

Pt. 1, § 5, of the act, 2 Comp.Laws 1929 § 8411, as amended by Act No. 245, Pub.Acts 1943, Comp.Laws Supp.1945, § 8411, Stat.Ann.1946 Cum.Supp. § 17.145, reads as follows:

Sec. 5. The following shall constitute employers subject to the provisions of this act:

‘Public. 1. The state, and each county, city, township, incorporated village and school district therein, and each incorporated public board of public commission in this state authorized by law to hold property and to sue or be sued generally;

‘Private. 2. Every person, firm and private corporation, including any public service corporation, who has any person in service under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written.'

The defendant is an ‘incorporated public board’ within the meaning of section 5 above quoted.

Sections 7 and 8, Art. XI, Mich. State Const.1908, are as follows:

Sec. 7. There shall be elected on the first Monday in April, nineteen hundred nine, a state board of agriculture to consist of six members, two of whom shall hold the office for two years, two for four years and two for six years. At every regular biennial spring election thereafter, there shall be elected two members whose term of office shall six years. The members thus elected and their successors in office shall be a body corporate to be known as ‘The State Board of Agriculture.'

Sec. 8. The state board of agriculture shall, as often as necessary, elect a president of the agricultural college, who shall be ex-officio a member of the board with the privilege of speaking but not of voting. He shall preside at the meetings of the board and be the principal executive officer of the college. The board shall have the general supervision of the college, and the direction and control of all agricultural college funds; and shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.'

We note that in § 7 above cited the defendant is designated a body corporate, hence our conclusion that defendant is an incorporated public board.

The sole remaining question is whether it is competent for the legislature to prescribe that the defendant shall be subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Defendant claims that the provision in § 8 above cited that the board (defendant) shall have the general supervision of the college and the direction and control of all agricultural college funds, prevents the legislature from requiring the board to expend any of the agricultural college funds for workmen's compensation.

Defendant cites Robinson v. Washtenaw Circuit Judge, 228 Mich. 225, 199 N.W. 618, which involved malpractice suits brought against the regents of the University of Michigan and a surgeon employed in the university hospital. The suits had been dismissed in circuit court and plaintiffs in those suits brought mandamus to compel the circuit judge to set aside his orders of dismissal. The board of regents (defendant in the original suits) had claimed immunity on the ground that the university hospital operated by the regents is a charitable institution. The opinion in the case says, 228 Mich. at page 227, 199 N.W. at page 619, that that ground is the only objection regarded as calling for serious consideration. However, at the conclusion of the opinion 228 Mich. on page 230, 199 N.W. on page 620, we say, ‘On the case stated in plaintiff's declarations we think denial of liability as to the regents could safely be rested on either ground,’ referring to the words, ‘state instrumentalities, as well as charities,’ in the immediately preceding excerpt quoted in that opinion. In other words, we held that the board of regents was immune both on the ground of being a State instrumentality and on the ground of their hospital being charitable or eleemosynary institution.

Immunity of defendant in the case at bar as a State governmental agency is not provided for in our State Constitution and the legislature by force of the words, ‘incorporated public board’ has included defendant as an employer subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act, thus to that extent depriving defendant of its immunity as an instrumentality of government. See Benson v. States Hospital Commission, 316 Mich. 66, 25 N.W.2d 112.

The Robinson Case, supra, does not in any wise discuss the meaning and effect of the constitutional clause giving defendant control of the funds of the college and the decision in that case does not aid the defendant in the case at bar.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act as originally enacted by Act No. 10, Pub. Acts 1912, 1st Ex.Sess., the private employer was at liberty to accept or not to accept the provisions of the act, but the State and political subdivisions thereof in general (with certain exceptions) were included as subject to the act without their consent.

In pt. 1, § 5, of the act as amended by Act No. 50, Pub.Acts 1913, effective August 14, 1913, 2 Comp.Laws 1929, § 8411, Stat.Ann. § 17.145, under the heading, ‘Public. 1.,’ incorporated public boards are made subject to the provisions of the act. Such incorporated public boards were not subject to nor mentioned in the act as originally enacted (Act No. 10, Pub.Acts 1912, 1st Ex.Sess.), above referred to. In the case of Agler v. Michigan Agricultural College, 181 Mich. 559, 148 N.W. 341, the employee was injured April 18, 1913, which was before the act of 1913, supra, was effective; hence in the Agler Case we say, 181 Mich. at page 563, 148 N.W. at page 342, that ‘the respondent was not within the list of employers who come under the provisions of the law of 1912 automatically.’ Defendant was not within such list at the time Agler received his injuries. The words just quoted must be construed to apply to the situation at the time of the occurrence of the supposed liability. The question before the court in the case at bar was not decided in the Agler case.

The case of State Board of Agriculture v. Auditor General, 226 Mich. 417, 197 N.W. 160, was brought in consequence of an effort on the part of the State administrative board to control the expenditures of the plaintiff State board of agriculture (the same board which is defendant in the case at bar) under an act of the legislature granting the State administrative board such powers. If the administrative board had been upheld in its contention, it would have exercised control over the educational activities of the college. In that case we held that the State administrative board could exercise no control over the funds of the college, such control being given to plaintiff board under the provisions of §§ 7 and 8 of Art. XI of the Constitution (hereinbefore cited in this opinion). However, the provision of the Constitution giving the State Board of Agriculture sole control of the funds of the college does not generally exempt the said board from the great body of general laws of this State. It is to be noted that § 8 of Art. XI of the State Constitution above quoted closes with the words, referring to the State board of agriculture, ‘shall perform such other duties as may be prescribed by law.'

We have heretofore had occasion to pass upon the constitutionality of the Workmen's Compensation Act as to some one or other of its various provisions in several cases, among which are the following: Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co., 187 Mich. 8,153 Mich. 49;Wood v. City of Detroit, 188 Mich. 547, 155 N.W. 592, L.R.A.1916C. 388;Grand Rapids Lumber Co. v. Blair, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Booth Newspapers, Inc. v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 28, 1993
    ...the educational process ... does not and cannot mean that they are exempt from all the laws of the state"); Peters v. Michigan State College, 320 Mich. 243, 30 N.W.2d 854 (1948) (a state university is considered an "incorporated public board," and, as such, subject to the workers' compensat......
  • Christie v. Board of Regents of University of Mich.
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • September 22, 1961
    ...thereof. I prefer the latter and accordingly agree with the reasoning of Chief Justice Dethmers, recorded in Peters v. Michigan State College, 320 Mich. 243, 251, 30 N.W.2d 854. Plaintiff's undenied petition for discovery discloses good reason for exercise of the discretion Rule 40 confers.......
  • Federated Publications, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, Docket No. 177264
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 14, 1997
    ...Id. In W.T. Andrew, supra at 665-667, 545 N.W.2d 351, the Court cited with approval the lead opinion in Peters v. Michigan State College, 320 Mich. 243, 30 N.W.2d 854 (1948), that applied the workmen's compensation laws to the college. In that opinion, Justice Reid stated that the workmen's......
  • William C. Reichenbach Co. v. State
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 18, 1979
    ...payment. In short, it is this court's opinion that the legislature is well within the policy established by Peters v. Michigan State College, 320 Mich. 243, 30 N.W.2d 854 (1948), and Branum v. Board of Regents, 5 Mich.App. 134, 145 N.W.2d 860 With this conclusion we disagree. Michigan State......
  • 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