Wall v. Studebaker Corp., No. 5.

CourtSupreme Court of Michigan
Writing for the CourtMcDONALD
Citation189 N.W. 58,219 Mich. 434
Decision Date20 July 1922
Docket NumberNo. 5.
PartiesWALL v. STUDEBAKER CORPORATION.

219 Mich. 434
189 N.W. 58

WALL
v.
STUDEBAKER CORPORATION.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 20, 1922.


Error to Circuit Court, Wayne County; John H. Goff, Judge.

Action by Fred C. Wall against the Studebaker Corporation. Judgment for defendant, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.

Argued before FELLOWS, C. J., and WIEST, McDONALD, CLARK, BIRD, SHARPE, MOORE, and STEERE, JJ.

[189 N.W. 58]

Dohany & Dohany, of Detroit, for appellant.

Beaumont, Smith & Harris, of Detroit (Hal H. Smith and Albert E. Meder, both of Detroit, of counsel), for appellee.


McDONALD, J.

The plaintiff is the father of Harry C. Wall, a minor, who was injured on the 3d day of July, 1918, while employed by the defendant.

The defendant is a Michigan corporation engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles in the city of Detroit.

This suit was brought by the father to recover wages lost by the monor by reason of his injuries.

The case was tried on a stipulated statement of facts, from which it appears that Harry C. Wall suffered injuries to his hand while working on a punch press which was operated by electricity; that the injury was the result of negligence of the defendant; that Harry C. Wall was not guilty of contributory negligence; that he did not assume the risk of his employment; that his injury was not due to any act of negligence of a fellow servant; and that the damages sustained by the father were $500.

It also appears in the stipulation that on the 17th day of August, 1912, prior to the date of the accident, the defendant filed with the Industrial Accident Board of the state of Michigan its written acceptance of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Comp. Laws, §§ 5423-5495); that thereafter defendant conformed in all respects to the provisions of the act; that at the time it was working under, and was subject to, the provisions of the act; that Harry C. Wall had been in the employ of the defendant for several months before the accident, and that at the time of his hiring, and at no time thereafter, did he, or anybody in his behalf, give any notice in writing to the defendant that he did not consent to come under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act; that after the accident Harry C. Wall made an agreement with the defendant in regard to compensation for loss of wages due to his injuries, in which it was stipulated that he should be paid $10 per week for a total period of 25 weeks.

After this stipulation was made upon the record, upon motion of counsel for defendant, the court directed a verdict of no cause of action on the theory that the Workmen's Compensation Act has abolished the plaintiff's cause of action for loss of services of his minor child while legally employed under that act.

The plaintiff, in appealing to this court, contends that the Workmen's Compensation

[189 N.W. 59]

Act did not abolish the right of action of a father for the loss of the services of his minor son, and that, if the statute is to be so construed, it is unconstitutional.

We think that the plain language of this statute...

To continue reading

Request your trial
17 practice notes
  • Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Glover, Civil 4820
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • May 23, 1945
    ...1939, a minor is required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold and delivered to him. In Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58, the supreme court of Michigan held a law valid giving a minor, who was employed in an industry subject to the Workmen's Compensation ......
  • Peters v. Mich. State Coll., No. 65.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • February 16, 1948
    ...Mich. 547, 155 N.W. 592, L.R.A.1916C. 388;Grand Rapids Lumber Co. v. Blair, 190 Mich. 518, 157 N.W. 29;Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58;American Lofe Ins. Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich. 580, 214 N.W. 208. In none of these cases has the act been found unconstitutional as ......
  • Naudzius v. Lahr, No. 129.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 23, 1931
    ...and may be abrogated by the Legislature. Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co., 187 Mich. 8, 153 N. W. 49;Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N. W. 58; 12 C. J. 972; Silver v. Silver, 280 U. S. 117, 50 S. Ct. 57, 74 L. Ed. 221. (2) Plaintiff's remedy for tort cannot be abolished ......
  • Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree, WINN-LOVETT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 18, 1954
    ...Sons Lumber Co., 68 Ga.App. 552, 23 S.E.2d 452; Hilsinger v. Zimmerman Steel Co., 193 Iowa 708, 187 N.W. 493; Wall v. Studebaker Corp., 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58; Buonfiglio v. R. Neumann Co., 93 N.J.L. 174, 107 A. 285; Monteleone v. Center Storage Warehouses, Inc., Sup., 68 N.Y.S.2d 369; ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
17 cases
  • Valley National Bank of Phoenix v. Glover, Civil 4820
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arizona
    • May 23, 1945
    ...1939, a minor is required to pay a reasonable price for necessaries sold and delivered to him. In Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58, the supreme court of Michigan held a law valid giving a minor, who was employed in an industry subject to the Workmen's Compensation ......
  • Peters v. Mich. State Coll., No. 65.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • February 16, 1948
    ...Mich. 547, 155 N.W. 592, L.R.A.1916C. 388;Grand Rapids Lumber Co. v. Blair, 190 Mich. 518, 157 N.W. 29;Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58;American Lofe Ins. Co. v. Balmer, 238 Mich. 580, 214 N.W. 208. In none of these cases has the act been found unconstitutional as ......
  • Naudzius v. Lahr, No. 129.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • January 23, 1931
    ...and may be abrogated by the Legislature. Mackin v. Detroit-Timkin Axle Co., 187 Mich. 8, 153 N. W. 49;Wall v. Studebaker Corporation, 219 Mich. 434, 189 N. W. 58; 12 C. J. 972; Silver v. Silver, 280 U. S. 117, 50 S. Ct. 57, 74 L. Ed. 221. (2) Plaintiff's remedy for tort cannot be abolished ......
  • Winn-Lovett Tampa v. Murphree, WINN-LOVETT
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 18, 1954
    ...Sons Lumber Co., 68 Ga.App. 552, 23 S.E.2d 452; Hilsinger v. Zimmerman Steel Co., 193 Iowa 708, 187 N.W. 493; Wall v. Studebaker Corp., 219 Mich. 434, 189 N.W. 58; Buonfiglio v. R. Neumann Co., 93 N.J.L. 174, 107 A. 285; Monteleone v. Center Storage Warehouses, Inc., Sup., 68 N.Y.S.2d 369; ......
  • 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