Schroetke v. Jackson-Church Co.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 382.,382.
• Citation: 160 N.W. 383,193 Mich. 616
• Parties: SCHROETKE v. JACKSON-CHURCH CO.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

193 Mich. 616

160 N.W. 383

SCHROETKE

v.JACKSON-CHURCH CO.

No. 382.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Dec. 21, 1916.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Law by Fredericka Schroetke for compensation for the death of her husband, Frederick Schroetke, opposed by the Jackson-Church Company, employer. Certiorari to review the decision of the Industrial Accident Board denying compensation. Reversed and remanded.

Argued before STONE, C. J., and KUHN, OSTRANDER, BIRD, MOORE, STEERE, and BROOKE, JJ. R. L. Crane, of Saginaw, for claimant.

Keena, Lightner, Oxtoby & Hanley, of Detroit, for appellee.

STONE, C. J.

This is certiorari by claimant to review the decision of the Industrial Accident Board. Frederick Schroetke died while in the employment of the respondent, on June 13, 1913. Respondent was under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The claimant is the widow of deceased. The deceased was about 72 years of age. He had been for 15 years continuously in the employ of the respondent as night watchman at its foundry and shops in Saginaw, and among his other duties he was to watch for accidental fires in said foundry and shops during the night, and in the event of one breaking out to extinguish it, if possible, and spread an alarm for aid to extinguish and control it. On the date in question deceased had spent the day at home, about eight blocks from respondent's plant, and about 5 o'clock in the afternoon left his home in usual health to take up his work at 6 o'clock in the evening. He walked to the foundry. A few minutes after beginning his work at said foundry and shops a fire broke out, and deceased attempted to extinguish it, and spread an alarm thereof, and as a result of his efforts to give the alarm of the fire and attendant excitement he died of heart failure, the death being hastened and caused, in whole or in part, thereby. He died in said foundry immediately after the arrival of the fire department. Compensation was denied by the Committee of Arbitration and this decision was affirmed by the full board.

The testimony taken before the Committee of Arbitration is all contained in the record, and it may be said that the evidence is undisputed. Immediately after the death of Mr. Schroetke, and while the body was still lying in the building, Dr. W. F. Morse was called to the plant and examined the the body. He testified that he saw no signs of external marks upon the body, and that from the examination he was of the opinion that Mr. Schroetke died from heart trouble; that the witness had treated the deceased some three or four years before; that at that time deceased was suffering from stomach trouble, and he had an irregular heart action; that he might have died from angina pectoris; that he did not disclose to Mr. Schroetke the condition of his heart when he treated him. The following testimony was given in answer to questions of the committee:

‘Q. In case a man has a weak heart, would excitement and overexertion have a tendency to precipitate stoppage of the heart and death? A. I would say it would. Q. So if this man Schroetke had a weak heart, heart trouble, and was engaged as watchman in the plant of the Jackson-Church Company and discovered a fire, and exerted himself somewhat in giving the alarm, what would you say as to the probable effect of the excitement and overexertion? A. Why any undue and overexcitement might affect the heart. Q. What would you say as to the exertion? A. Of course, that aided. Q. The quick movements the man probably would make in a case fire breaking out? A. I think the action through the excitement and the shock would cause the heart, possibly, to cease to beat. Respondent's Counsel: Q. Ordinarily speaking of a man who was suffering from heart trouble, or any other condition such as to give any such effect, that almost anything might cause his death? A. I would say that any little shock or excitement might bring it on. Q. In other words, if I understand you correctly, the condition of his heart had been running such a length of time that almost anything which would be a shock or some undue excitement would cause his sudden demise? A. Yes. A Member of the Committee: Q. You don't mean to say any little thing would affect his heart? A. I think any shock, excitement of any kind, would bring on the same condition of things; any excitement would bring on heart failure. Q. That is, if the heart was in a certain condition? A. Yes; if the heart was a weak heart. Q. Is there anything else, Doctor, that might have caused his death excepting heart failure and heart trouble? A. I think he died from heart trouble.’

Error is assigned on the action of the board in refusing to award compensation to claimant, when, as is claimed, the testimony and conceded facts show there was an accidental, personal injury to deceased resulting in death.

The answer of the Industrial Accident Board to the writ of certiorari, in referring to the hearing before that board, contains the following language:

‘At the inception of the hearing claimant's attorney stated: ‘As I understand, the facts in this case are not in dispute. The position of the defendant is no liability, because the death resulted from heart failure while deceased was in the performance of his duty as watchman for respondent. The cause of death arose from and grew out of the discharge of the employé's duties to defendant, and death resulted from an affected heart and overexertion and excitement in the discharge of his duty. If these are not the facts, and respondent takes different position, I desire to produce further testimony in the cause.’

‘Mr. Kinnane: I so understand the facts. We certify and return that deceased was employed as watchman in respondent's plant at Saginaw at the time of death and for 15 years just prior. Among his duties he was required to watch for fires in the plant, and in event of one breaking out to extinguish it and spread alarm for aid. He began his labors about 5:30 p. m., and continued till 6 a. m., each night. He spent the day prior to his death with his family apparently enjoying good health and went to his work eight blocks from home at 5 p. m. He discovered a fire at 6 p. m. in defendant's plant, and immediately spread alarm by blowing the whistle. The president of the company went from the office near by into the plant and told him not to blow the whistle longer, as he would telephone the fire department. In a few minutes deceased began sounding the whistle again, and the president went to him and said,‘I have phoned the fire department, and don't blow the whistle any more, but close the factory doors and keep the crowd out.’ A strike was on at the factory. Directly the fire department arrived and proceeded to place the hose to extinguish the fire. Deceased said something to one of the firemen concerning directing the stream on another part of building. The president of the company observed deceased was pale and started to fall. His knees began to waver. In a few minutes he dropped to his knees, fell over, and died almost instantly. Dr. Morse, the physician who had previously treated the deceased, was called and examined the body, and gave testimony at the hearing as to the condition found and his opinion as to the cause of death, said testimony being correctly set forth in the petition in this case.

‘The plant of the defendant is a large one covering the block, and the deceased was the only watchman. The deceased showed much zeal in giving the alarm of fire and to protect his employer's property, and was excited. He was afflicted with heart ailment, and his death was due to heart failure caused by the diseased condition of his heart and the excitement and exertion incident to the fire. He received no physical injury in the sense that he was not struck by anything, did not fall, or receive any blow, contusion, or physical impact.

‘(2) The proceedings at the hearing before the Committee on Arbitration and the evidence in said cause are correctly set forth in the petition attached to and made a part of this return, except that the following should be added: ‘The fire was a small one, and was in a shed adjoining one of the factory buildings. The total loss was about $600 principally arising out of injury to the motors belonging to the company.’

‘(3) The arbitrators found claimant was not entitled to compensation under Act 10, P. A. 1912. Claimant duly appealed to this board, but upon its suggestion the appeal rested until a similar case then before the board should be disposed of, but, that case not coming to decision, the instant case was in proper time and manner presented for decision. This board on April 20, 1916, presented that under the facts the law as provided in said Act No. 10 of 1912 did not permit claimant to recover, and the decision of the arbitrators was affirmed.

‘Conclusion of Law.

‘The holding of the board as a matter of law in this case was that the excitement and exertion, unaccompanied by any immediate physical injury, did not constitute an accident for which compensation could be awarded, within the meaning of the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Law.’

The evidence in the case being undisputed, we think the record fairly reises the question whether the conclusion of law reached by the Industrial Accident Board was justified by the facts found. We think this case fairly presents the question whether compensation can be recovered where death or disability results from overexertion and excitement caused by an accidental fire such as broke out in this case, where the deceased was afflicted with heart ailment, and where death was due to heart failure caused by deceased's condition of the heart and the excitement and exertion incident to the fire. It is the claim of the claimant that the case is governed and controlled by our own decisions, and especially by La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 157 N. W. 72, L. R. A. 1916D, 1277.

In our opinion, ...