Blaess v. Dolph

161 N.W. 885, 195 Mich. 137, 1917 Mich. LEXIS 665
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 29, 1917
DocketDocket No. 84
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 161 N.W. 885 (Blaess v. Dolph) 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
Blaess v. Dolph, 161 N.W. 885, 195 Mich. 137, 1917 Mich. LEXIS 665 (Mich. 1917).

Opinion

Stone, J.

In this case a writ of certiorari was issued to the industrial accident board, inquiring into the regularity and merits of an award for compensation made to the claimant, as the result of the death of her husband, Herman O. Blaess, an employee of Ray A. Dolph, one of the defendants, herein. The defendant Dolph was an undertaker at Ann Arbor, and had employed claimant’s, husband for over one year as his assistant. Both parties, were operating under the terms of the workmen’s compensation act, defendant Dolph being insured by the defendant the [139]*139Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York. Claimant’s. husband died on December 8, 1915, from a virulent type of streptococcus infection. In its petition for the writ of certiorari of the defendant the Fidelity & Casualty Company it is claimed:

(1) That there was no testimony introduced before the committee on arbitration or the industrial accident board from which it might be concluded that the injury to claimant’s deceased arose out of and in the course of his employment.
(2) That the injured himself did not know where, or when he received the injury and infection; and, although it was amply proven that he might have received it in the course of his employment, ■ there is no testimony upon which a legal conclusion can be based that he did so receive it.

The return of the industrial accident board .to the writ contains the following:

“We hereby further certify and return that from the evidence submitted we made the following finding-of facts: That said Herman O. Blaess was employed by respondent Ray Dolph at the time of the accident complained of, as assistant undertaker at the city of Ann Arbor; that on the 1st day of December, 1915, in the course of his employment, Blaess cleaned and sterilized instruments which had been used by his employer to embalm the body of a woman by the name of Mrs. Roy; that Mrs. Roy died from streptococcus infection on November 30, 1915; that prior to the 2d day of December, in a manner not disclosed by the evidence, Mr. Blaess received a cut upon his ring finger of the left hand; that Mr. Blaess died on the 8th day of December, 1915, from a virulent type of streptococcus infection. We are satisfied from the circumstances as disclosed by all of the evidence, and find as a fact that Mr. Blaess became infected from streptococcus infection on the 1st day of December, 1915, by accidentally becoming infected with said germ while cleaning the instruments which had been used upon the dead body of Mrs. Roy, who had died of streptococcus infection; that the infection from which [140]*140Mr. Blaess died was the type which comes from the second incubation, that is, this type of germ comes from an infection from a dead body; that the only dead bodies disclosed by the evidence that Mr. Blaess had anything to do with were those that he had to_ do with during the course of his employment, which eliminates, in the judgment of the board, with reasonable certainty, that he may have received it from a source outside of his employment. And therefore the industrial accident board finds that the streptococcus infection entered the body of the deceased while he was working for his said employer, and that this particular type of infection was one of the dangers of the undertaking business, an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment.”

It is the contention of defendants that during all of this year there had been an epidemic of streptococcus infection at Ann Arbor, in which many people had died, the germs of which were so virulent that death usually resulted in a very short space of time, that the sources of infection were so many that the claimant’s physician could not enumerate them, and that there was no testimony which would permit the sustaining of an award except on the basis of conjecture, speculation, and the merest guess. 'A careful reading of the testimony will show that the claim that there had been, or then was, an epidemic of streptococcus infection at Ann Arbor is not sustained. It did appear that during the two years previous there had been “several of them, and the most of them had died.” There was no evidence that there was on November 30, 1915, any other case than that of Mrs. Roy, who died about noon of that day. The body of this woman had been embalmed by Mr. Dolph and his wife that afternoon, and Mr. Dolph himself testified that Mr. Blaess cleaned the instruments that had been used in the Roy case, “sterilized them, and boiled them and put them in my grips.” Mr. Dolph testified:

“Q. Will you describe to the commission of what [141]*141your instruments consist, the character of the instruments, whether they are instruments with a dull edge, or a keen edge?
“A. They are keen-edged instruments, most of them.
“Q. How many?
“A. Why, what an ordinary undertaker would use, well, quite a kit of instruments. That would take quite a little bit of time. We have to carry nearly as much as a surgeon would carry, the scalpel, and knives, and different instruments. * * * All the instruments-that I used on this case were put in a separate grip and sterilized by Mr. Blaess after I got home. I always sterilized all instruments and everything used on a case when we got through with it.
“Q. Did Mr. Blaess do that?
“A. Yes, sir; that night. I got home about 5 o’clock. Then he had this man Smith.”

It appears that a man by the name of Smith had died that day at the University Hospital, and Mr. Blaess had taken that body to the medical building for an autopsy, and had then brought it to the undertaking rooms of Mr. Dolph. There is no evidence or claim that the man Smith had died of, or been afflicted with, streptococcus infection. A man by the name of Wagner had died on November 16th or 17th, some two-weeks before, from this infection. He was a butcher-had cut himself, and became infected and died of the infection — and Mr. Blaess had assisted in embalming the body. This was about two weeks before Mr. Blaess’ infection. Mr. Dolph testified that Mrs. Roy’s funeral was on December 3d, and that 'Mr. Blaess helped him dress and put her body in the casket. There was evidence to the effect that Mrs. Roy died of streptococcus infection, that the sharp-edged instruments used in embalming her body were immediately thereafter handled and cleaned by Mr. Blaess; that within 36 hours thereafter he began to suffer from a virulent streptococcus infection which came through a small cut in his finger, which cut was received in a manner [142]*142not disclosed by any direct evidencethat such virulent infection could only come, according to the medical testimony, directly from a body containing a streptococcus infection; and that no other case of streptococcus infection was shown to have existed where Mr. Blaess could.have acquired the infection, as it would develop' within 24 to 48 hours, and might develop sooner than 24 hours. Dr. Gates, who attended the deceased from the beginning, testified that deceased had a small sharp cut on the ring finger of his left hand, which, when he first saw it on December 2, was red and inflamed. His diagnosis of the trouble was:

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

Related

Miller v. Radikopf
228 N.W.2d 386 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1975)
Litwin v. Difco Laboratories, Inc.
184 N.W.2d 318 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970)
Stables v. General Motors Corp.
24 N.W.2d 524 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
MacRae v. Unemployment Compensation Commission
217 N.C. 769 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
MacRae v. . Unemployment Compensation Com.
9 S.E.2d 595 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1940)
Basil v. Butterworth Hospital
262 N.W. 281 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1935)
Todd Dry Docks, Inc. v. Marshal
49 F.2d 621 (W.D. Washington, 1931)
Texas Employers' Ins. Ass'n v. Mitchell
27 S.W.2d 600 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Neudeck v. Ford Motor Co.
229 N.W. 438 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1930)
Dunwoody v. Royal Indemnity Co.
188 N.W. 498 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Perdew v. Nufer Cedar Co.
167 N.W. 868 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
Jerner v. Imperial Furniture Co.
166 N.W. 943 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
Krout v. J. L. Hudson Co.
166 N.W. 848 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1918)
State ex rel. Albert Dickinson Co. v. District Court
165 N.W. 478 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1917)
Dove v. Alpena Hide & Leather Co.
164 N.W. 253 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1917)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
161 N.W. 885, 195 Mich. 137, 1917 Mich. LEXIS 665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blaess-v-dolph-mich-1917.