Stornant v. Licari-Packard Grosse Pointe, LICARI-PACKARD

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Citation332 Mich. 210,50 N.W.2d 762
Docket NumberNo. 45,LICARI-PACKARD,45
PartiesSTORNANT v.GROSSE POINTE, Inc. et al.
Decision Date07 January 1952

Cary & BeGole, Detroit, for appellants.

Lacey, Scroggie, Lacey & Buchanan, Detroit, for appellee.

Before the Entire Bench, except BUTZEL, J.

BOYLES, Justice.

Plaintiff was awarded workmen's compensation by the commission and the defendants appeal. The only question involved is whether plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. More precisely, the issue is whether the injury occurred in the course of his employment.

Plaintiff was employed by the defendant Packard automobile service garage as a bumper or metal finisher and furnished all his own tools except a grinder. His tools included different sets of sockets and end wrenches and air hammer, dolly-blocks, and hammers of different descriptions. While not working he kept these tools at his home and took them with him in his automobile for his own use in doing his work, which was collision work, bumping and straightening out fenders and doors, et cetera. For his services he was paid 50 per cent of whatever said defendant charged for his work. He parked his automobile with his tools in it wherever he chose when he drove to work, usually on the street, but if he were going to use his heavier tools he often parked for convenience on the defendant's used car parking lot. On the day of his injury he had parked his automobile and tools on a lot owned by said defendant adjacent to its service garage building.

On that date he had completed his work for said defendant, had punched the time clock, washed up, and had left the building to go to his automobile, carrying with him some of his tools to place in his automobile, when he slipped and fell and was injured. He testified:

'Q. Mr. Stornant, you own and furnish certain tools that you used in your work as a metal finisher, including this air hammer? A. That's right.

'Q. And you regularly took these tools in your car with you and took them home at night for protection as your own property? A. That's right.

'Q. If you were going to need them in your work during the day, you either took them in, or went out to your car during the day? A. That's right.

'Q. And then you took them out to your car, so you wouldn't lose them in the shop? A. That's right.'

To support his claim that his injury occurred in the course of his employment plaintiff relies on De Mann v. Hydraulic Engineering Co., 192 Mich. 594, 159 N.W. 380, 381. In that case the plaintiff was employed as a common laborer by the defendant company. He had been at work in the basement of a theater building connecting water meters. The tools which he used belonged to his employer and when not in use were stored on the stage of the theater above the basement. It was one of De Mann's duties to look after his employer's tools and see that they were properly put away when the day's work was ended. He was injured while ascending or descending a flight of stairs leading from the basement to the stage floor. The Court said: 'It is undoubtedly true that the deceased was on his way from the basement to the stage for the purpose of getting his clothing, or to look after the tools, or both. There is no other apparent reason for his having been on the stairway. if his purpose was to look after the tools, that was clearly within the line of his employment.'

In the instant case the facts are different. At the time plaintiff slipped and fell on the way to his automoble he was not performing any service or duty he owed to his employer but was doing something solely for himself and for his own convenience. His injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

'It is well settled that, to justify an award, the accident must have arisen 'out of' as well as 'in the course of' the employment, and the two are separate questions to be determined by different...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 35
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • April 2, 1956
    ...Corporation, 329 Mich. 84, 44 N.W.2d 880; Kelly v. Dixie Fuel & Supply Co., 329 Mich. 466, 45 N.W.2d 356; Stornant v. Licari-Packard Grosse Pointe, Inc., 332 Mich. 210, 50 N.W.2d 762; Saily v. 500 Bushel Club, 332 Mich. 286, 50 N.W.2d 781; Lewis v. Michigan Workmen's Compensation Commission......
  • Blair v. Armour & Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 3, 1957
    ...off the premises are of little or no help in reaching a conclusion on the question we are now discussing. In Stornant v. Licari-Packard Inc., 332 Mich. 210, 50 N.W.2d 762, 764, the court was discussing a situation where the employee had completed his work and was on his way to his automobil......
  • Jean v. Chrysler Corp.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • March 22, 1966
    ...(1941), 297 Mich. 8, 296 N.W. 861; Daniel v. Murray Corporation (1949), 326 Mich. 1, 39 N.W.2d 229 and Stornant v. Licari-Packard Grosse Pointe, Inc. (1952), 332 Mich. 210, 50 N.W.2d 762. Had our specific fact situation arisen only a few short years ago, there is scarce doubt that this appe......
  • Lewis v. Michigan Workmen's Compensation Commission
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • December 9, 1952
    ...Corporation, 329 Mich. 84, 44 N.W.2d 880; Kelly v. Dixie Fuel & Supply Co., 329 Mich. 466, 45 N.W.2d 356; Stornant v. Licari-Packard Grosse Pointe, Inc., 332 Mich. 210, 50 N.W.2d 762; Saily v. 500 Bushel Club, 332 Mich. 286, 50 N.W.2d The commission cited Weaver v. General Motors Corporatio......
  • 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