Home/Michigan Supreme Court/Clark v. Chrysler Corporation

Clark v. Chrysler Corporation

267 N.W. 589, 276 Mich. 24, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 915
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJune 11, 1936
DocketDocket No. 100, Calendar No. 38,606.
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 267 N.W. 589 (Clark v. Chrysler Corporation) 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
Clark v. Chrysler Corporation, 267 N.W. 589, 276 Mich. 24, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 915 (Mich. 1936).

Opinions

The award goes beyond any instance to be found in the books and the reasoning of my Brother does not supply the want. *Page 29

Industry must take care of its disabled, but optional gymnasium exercises cannot be said to be a part of employment so that a common mishap in indulgement is an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.

The opinion of my Brother would result in ending the trend toward beneficial consideration of employees along like lines by employers. It stretches terms to hold that plaintiff's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment by defendant.

The employer provided a place for recreation of employees and left the method and means of enjoyment to the will of each individual. It may be true that the benefit derived by a user of the place not only tended to improve him physically but, as well, to create a more friendly relation between employer and employee, but such physical betterment and emotional result, while desirable, do not attach to the contract of employment.

The award is vacated, with costs.

NORTH, C.J., and FEAD, BUTZEL, BUSHNELL, and TOY, JJ., concurred with WIEST, J. POTTER, J., took no part in this decision.

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

Related

Montgomery County v. Smith
799 A.2d 406 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2002)
Complitano v. Steel & Alloy Tank Co.
164 A.2d 792 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1960)
Tocci v. Tessler & Weiss, Inc.
147 A.2d 783 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1959)
Noble, Etc. v. Zimmerman
146 N.E.2d 828 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1957)
MacK v. Reo Motors, Inc.
76 N.W.2d 35 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1956)
Woodmansee v. Frank Lyon Co.
265 S.W.2d 521 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1954)
Hickman v. City of Detroit
40 N.W.2d 722 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1950)
Daniel v. Murray Corp. of America
39 N.W.2d 229 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1949)
Matter of Wilson v. General Motors Corp.
84 N.E.2d 781 (New York Court of Appeals, 1949)
Joseph B. McKenna v. City of Waterbury
15 Conn. Super. Ct. 405 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1948)
Stables v. General Motors Corp.
24 N.W.2d 524 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
Luteran v. Ford Motor Co.
21 N.W.2d 825 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
Linderman v. Cownie Furs
13 N.W.2d 677 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1944)
Tom Joyce 7 Up Company v. Layman
44 N.E.2d 998 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1942)
State Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Industrial Commission
292 N.W. 324 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1940)
Industrial Commission v. Murphy
76 P.2d 741 (Supreme Court of Colorado, 1938)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
267 N.W. 589, 276 Mich. 24, 1936 Mich. LEXIS 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-chrysler-corporation-mich-1936.