Belanger v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Belanger v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.

249 N.W. 893, 264 Mich. 407, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1031

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedAugust 31, 1933

DocketDocket No. 17, Calendar No. 36,761.

StatusPublished

This text of 249 N.W. 893 (Belanger v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Belanger v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co., 249 N.W. 893, 264 Mich. 407, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1031 (Mich. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Clark, J.

Plaintiff while employed as a section laborer by defendant suffered an accidental personal *408 injury. Defendant’s claim agent called upon plaintiff and offered Mm nearly $700 in settlement and compromise of the claim. Plaintiff declined. Thereupon, according to the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, the claim agent told plaintiff that if he would return to work, as recommended by defendant’s doctor, he would be paid according to the terms of the Michigan workmen’s compensation law (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 et seq_.). Plaintiff agreed, and returned to work. Not being paid, he brought suit, a count of the declaration being, under the Federal employers’ liability act (45 USCA, §§ 51-59), and a second count upon the agreement stated. The first count was eliminated. From verdict and judgment under the second count, defendant has appealed. "Whether the agreement was made was clearly a question of fact for the jury.

The employer was not under the MicMgan workmen’s compensation law. There is evidence of express authority of the claim agent to settle the claim. In view of the circumstances, including the fact that plaintiff returned to work in pursuance of the agreement, it is clear that the jury was justified in finding-implied authority at least on the part of the claim agent to make the agreement.

The agreement merely provided a measure of damages, the compensation act, and damages were measured accordingly. Clearly the agreed measure is not uncertain, as the compensation act in this respect has not been so regarded.

Other questions are presented but call for no discussion. We find no error.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. Fead, J., did not participate in this decision.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clark, J.

Plaintiff while employed as a section laborer by defendant suffered an accidental personal *408 injury. Defendant’s claim agent called upon plaintiff and offered Mm nearly $700 in settlement and compromise of the claim. Plaintiff declined. Thereupon, according to the testimony of plaintiff and his witnesses, the claim agent told plaintiff that if he would return to work, as recommended by defendant’s doctor, he would be paid according to the terms of the Michigan workmen’s compensation law (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 et seq_.). Plaintiff agreed, and returned to work. Not being paid, he brought suit, a count of the declaration being, under the Federal employers’ liability act (45 USCA, §§ 51-59), and a second count upon the agreement stated. The first count was eliminated. From verdict and judgment under the second count, defendant has appealed. "Whether the agreement was made was clearly a question of fact for the jury.

The employer was not under the MicMgan workmen’s compensation law. There is evidence of express authority of the claim agent to settle the claim. In view of the circumstances, including the fact that plaintiff returned to work in pursuance of the agreement, it is clear that the jury was justified in finding-implied authority at least on the part of the claim agent to make the agreement.

The agreement merely provided a measure of damages, the compensation act, and damages were measured accordingly. Clearly the agreed measure is not uncertain, as the compensation act in this respect has not been so regarded.

Other questions are presented but call for no discussion. We find no error.

Affirmed.

McDonald, C. J., and Potter, Sharpe, North, Wiest, and Butzel, JJ., concurred. Fead, J., did not participate in this decision.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

249 N.W. 893, 264 Mich. 407, 1933 Mich. LEXIS 1031, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belanger-v-chicago-north-western-railway-co-mich-1933.