Powell v. Twin Drilling Co., 23.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 23.,23. |
| Citation | 2 N.W.2d 505,300 Mich. 566 |
| Parties | POWELL v. TWIN DRILLING CO. et al. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Appeal (in the Nature of Certiorari) from Department of Labor and Industry.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Von G. Powell, claimant, opposed by Twin Drilling Company, employer, and Standard Accident Insurance Company, insurer. From an order of the Department of Labor and Industry granting an award, the employer and insurer appeal.
Award reversed.
Before the Entire Bench, except WIEST, J.
Lowell C. Stellberger, of Detroit, for appellant.
H. Monroe Stanton, of Saginaw, for appellee.
Defendant, Twin Drilling Company, was under contract to drill an oil well for the Pure Oil Company in Arenac County. Plaintiff was employed by Pure Oil Company as a roustabout and had been so employed for a period of approximately two years prior to October 14, 1940, the date he sustained an accidental injury for which he seeks compensation herein.
Oil was struck by the drillers between one and one-thirty o'clock, A. M., Monday, October 14, 1940. About that time, an employee of defendant came to the house where plaintiff roomed to get another employee of the Twin Drilling Company and take him to the well. During the conversation, plaintiff learned that oil had been found and shortly thereafter drove in his own car to the scene of operations. Upon arriveal, he found some employees of defendant engaged in attempting to unload a portable derrick from a trailer by means of a gin pole and winch attached to the rear of a truck. The derrick, however, was so heavy that upon attempting to lift it from the trailer, the front of the truck to which the gin pole was attached would raise into the air. A plank had been placed across the front bumper of the truck and two of defendant's regular employees were standing thereon but their weight was not sufficient to keep the truck on the ground. Plaintiff claims that defendant's foreman, Mr. Rush, requested him to give assistance by standing on the plank, which he did. After standing there for a few minutes, one of the other men jumped off, whereupon the front of the truck again raised in the air and plaintiff was thrown to the ground, with resulting injury.
The department of labor and industry found that defendant's foreman requested plaintiff's assistance in standing on the front of the truck and that he thereupon became an employee of the Twin Drilling Company. An award of compensation was accordingly entered and this appeal in the nature of certiorari followed.
To entitle pl...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Scott v. Alsar Co.
...that before plaintiff can recover, the relationship of employer and employee must be admitted or proved.' Powell v. Twin Drilling Co., 1942, 300 Mich. 566, 2 N.W.2d 505, 506. The language in section 7, subd. 2, pt. 1, of the act was changed by P.A.1949, No. 284, to that hereinbefore quoted.......
-
Chamberlain v. Haanpaa
...v. Wiitala (1960), 361 Mich. 504, 105 N.W.2d 400; Cheney v. Olender (1942), 303 Mich. 129, 5 N.W.2d 692; Powell v. Twin Drilling Co. (1942), 300 Mich. 566, 2 N.W.2d 505; Diefenback v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (1937), 280 Mich. 507, 273 N.W. 783; and Wojewoda v. Rybarczyk (1929), 246......
-
People v. Young
... ... 's expert witness, Mark Stolorow, a Michigan State Police employee and co-developer of the technique, who testified that he devoted approximately ... ...
-
Pace v. Gibson
...statement above quoted, and contains specific reference to a 'contract of hire, express or implied.' See, also, Powell v. Twin Drilling Co., 300 Mich. 566, 2 N.W.2d 505. In accord with the exception to the general rule as to the right of a volunteer to recover damages on the basis of ordina......