Freiborg v. Chrysler Corporation

85 N.W.2d 145, 350 Mich. 104, 1957 Mich. LEXIS 259

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Decided: October 7, 1957
• Docket: Docket 36, Calendar 47,010
• Status: Published

Opinions

Dethmers, C. J.

Plaintiff was employed to work in one of defendant’s plants. Defendant owned a parking lot located about 200 yards from the entrance by which plaintiff gained admission to the plant. As indicated by a posted sign and established by evidence, defendant maintained the lot exclusively for automobile parking by its employees while working in that plant. Because it was necessary to arrive early in order to find a parking place on the lot, plaintiff parked his automobile there 45 minutes before his working hours for the day began. After parking and while walking on the lot en route to the plant, he was struck by the automobile of a fellow employee. The date was June 22,1955. This appeal is from an award to plaintiff of medical benefits and compensation for resultant injuries and disability. Defendant contends that plaintiff’s injuries and disability did not arise out of and in the course of his employment and are, therefore, not compensable.

The workmen’s compensation act, part 2, § 1 (CL 1948, § 412.1 [Stat Ann 1944 Cum Supp § 17.151]), was amended by PA 1954, No 175, effective August 13, 1954, which added the following:

“Every employee going to or from his work while on the premises where his work is to be performed, and within a reasonable time before and after his working hours, shall be presumed to be in the course of his employment.”

Defendant says that the amendment’s presumption regarding “on the premises” injuries is not conclusive, fades in the face of evidence, and, in the instant case, disappeared upon introduction of proofs to the contrary. The presumption, so-called, is a creature of the statute. Our duty is to arrive at the legislative intent in its creation as expressed in the statute. In such pursuit no particular charm inheres in court-attached labels such as “conclusive,” “absolute,” “disputable” or “rebuttable” as a guide to legislative intent. Defendant does not point to the specific proofs in the record which it claims effected the disappearance of the presumption. To follow what seems to be defendant’s logic, upon any showing that plaintiff’s work was to be performed at a place on the premises which he either had not yet reached or had already left when he was injured, the presumption disintegrates. That that is defendant’s theory appears from the fact that there are no other proofs in the record upon which it could possibly rely as having supplanted the presumption. Such theory would leave the presumption with no field for operation except in a case where there are no proofs whatsoever available in that regard. And yet those are precisely the proofs which the amendment makes prerequisite to invoking the presumption, namely, proofs that he was “going to or from his work while on the premises.” It would be ironical, indeed, if it were to be held that the legislature intended that the only proofs which by statute can give rise to the presumption should at one and the same time eliminate or refute it.

I cannot subscribe to the notion that the legislature intended no change by the amendment. There is a strong presumption to the contrary. Lawrence Baking Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 308 Mich 198 (154 ALR 660); Bonifas-Gorman Lumber Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 313 Mich 363; In re Loakes’ Estate, 320 Mich 674; Packard Motor Car Company v. Unemployment Compensation Commission, 320 Mich 358. The amendment was not necessary for the purpose of creating a presumption that an injury arises in the course of employment in those situations in which an employee is injured while coming or going and his coming and going are a part of his duty or of the work he is paid to do, inasmuch as it was already so held, without benefit of a statutory presumption, in cases such as Kunze v. Detroit Shade Tree Co., 192 (LRA1917A, 252); Stockley v. School District No. 1 of Portage Township, 231 Mich 523 (24 NCCA 170); Favorite v. Kalamazoo State Hospital, 238 Mich 566; Wilhelm v. Angell, Wilhelm & Shreve, 252 Mich 648; Wearner v. Seventh Day Adventists, 260 Mich 540; Mann v. Board of Education of City of Detroit, 266 Mich 271; and Weaver v. General Motors Corporation, 330 Mich 404. The conclusion is inescapable that the legislative intent, in adopting the amendment, was to remedy the situation resulting from decision in Daniel v. Murray Corporation of America, 326 Mich 1, decided in 1949, in which it was held that proof that an employee suffered an injury on the premises, while going from his work but when he was no longer actually performing it, fails to establish an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, by providing a rule of evidence for proof that, under such circumstances, the injury does so arise. The language of the amendment is specific to that effect, applying in express terms not to one while at the place where his work is to be performed or while actually performing it, but to one “going to or from his work while on the premises.” According to defendant, such a person is not “in the course of his employment.” The clear intendment of the amendment is that he is. To hold otherwise would be to render the amendment meaningless. It should be held, therefore, that the plaintiff in the instant case was injured while in the course of his employment.

Why, it may be asked, does the amendment speak merely in terms of a presumption if it is not to be considered rebutted by proof that plaintiff, when injured on the premises, had-not yet reached or had already left the place thereon where his work is to-be performed? If not thus rebuttable, does it follow that what the statute created was not a presumption at all but a substantive right, or, if a presumption, that it■ is “conclusive”? We think not, but that the door was purposely left open to rebuttal of the presumption in those situations in which compensation had theretofore been denied under decisions of this Court, namely where plaintiff was injured while doing an act serving the interests of himself or a third party, but not of his employer, as in Spooner v. Detroit Saturday Night Co., 187 Mich 125 (LRA1916A, 17, 9 NCCA 647); Sichterman v. Kent Storage Co., 217 Mich 364 (20 ALR 309); and Conklin v. Industrial Transport, Inc., 312 Mich 250, or while engaged in an unprovoked assault upon another as in Horvath v. La Fond, 305 Mich 69, or in sportive acts or horseplay as in Tarpper v. Weston-Mott Co., 200 Mich 275 (LRA1918E, 507); Derhammer v. Detroit News, 229 Mich 658; and Jones v. Campbell, Wyant & Cannon Foundry Co., 284 Mich 358, or while acting contrary to the orders or directions of his employer-as in Lauscher v. Montgomery Ward & Company, Inc., 327 Mich 358, in all of which cases the plaintiff’s action when injured was not an incident to his employment as it was here. Also, the legislature was undoubtedly cognizant of the fact that by taking care to create only a rule of evidence — a presumption, as a remedial device, and avoiding, as we think it did, the creation of a substantive right — a new cause of action, the amendment would be held to apply to all subsequent proceedings, regardless of whether the date of injury antedated or followed the effective date of the amendment. See Ritter v. Seestedt, 212 Mich 208, in which this Court upheld application of a newly-enacted statutory presumption of fraud to a pre-existing cause of action; see, also, Rookledge v. Garwood, 340 Mich 444, in which this Court held that the workmen’s compensation act is remedial legislation, that when an amendment thereto restored a common-law remedy lost whén the act was adopted no vested right was destroyed, no new cause of action was created and the amendment was applicable to a cause of action which antedated it.

I am not impressed by defendant’s argument that while plaintiff was on the parking lot he was not, in the language of the statute, “on the premises where his work is to be performed.” Whether or not the parking lot was immediately adjacent to or a part of the same property on which the plant stood seems to me of no moment. The lot was in the proximity of and used as an adjunct to the plant in which plaintiff worked and it was furnished by defendant to plaintiff and his fellow employees for parking-their automobiles as an incident to their employment in the plant. For the purposes of the amendment,, it should be considered as part of the premises where-plaintiff’s work is to be performed.

Finally, defendant stresses that the amendment provides only for a presumption that an employee-is “in the course of his employment” but not that his injury arises “out of his employment.” So, says-defendant, even if it be conceded that plaintiff, when injured, was in the course of his employment, the-award must fail because there is no proof that his injury arose out of his employment and the amendment supplies no presumption in that regard. Here-again, as was true of defendant’s contention that the-“in the course of” presumption was evaporated by the evidence in the record, if it were to be held that, despite the presumption that an employee was in the course of employment when injured, his injuries-do not arise out of his employment if they were sustained on the way to or from his work while on the-premises unless he was performing a duty for his employer at the time, such holding would serve to render the amendment futile and pointless. Furthermore, it had long been held in Michigan that an employee’s injury sustained on the premises while going to or from work may be one that arises out of his-employment, even though the employee is rendering no particular service ,to his employer at the time, in such cases as Porritt v. Detroit United Railway, 199 Mich 200; Babl v. Pere Marquette R. Co., 272 Mich 184; De Mann v. Hydraulic Engineering Co., 192 Mich 594; Brink v. J. W. Wells Lumber Co., 229 Mich 35. And in Haller v. City of Lansing, 195 Mich 753, 759, 760 (LRA1917E, 324), this Court quoted with approval from 1 Honnold on Workmen’s Compensation, pp 381-384, the following: ■

“Acts of ministration by a servant to himself, such as quenching his thirst, relieving his hunger, protecting himself from excessive cold, performance of which while at work are reasonably necessary to his health and comfort, are incidents to his employment and acts of service therein within the workmen’s compensation acts, though they are only indirectly conducive to the purpose of the employment. Consequently no break in the employment is caused by the mere fact that the workman is ministering to his comforts or necessities, as by warming himself, or seeking shelter, or by leaving his work to relieve nature, or to procure a drink, refreshments, food, or fresh air, or to rest in the shade.”

But defendant’s reliance is on Daniel v. Murray Corporation of America, supra, as having, in effect, overruled those cases. The majority opinion in Daniel made no mention of those cases, either to distinguish or overrule them. Unfortunately, the minority opinion, which reached the same result as did those cases, also failed to mention or to place any reliance upon them, but, instead, planted decision upon a Massachusetts case clearly predicated on a statutory provision not in effect in Michigan, which defect in reasoning was clearly pointed out (p 7) in the majority opinion. As one who signed that majority opinion, I am constrained to say, however, that I now believe it to have been erroneous. As just; stated, it made no mention of the existence of the last above-cited cases which were controlling of the situation. - It did cite, as appears on page 6 of the report, a group of 12 cases for the proposition that an employee’s injuries sustained on the way to or from work do not arise out of and in the course of employment, if there is no causal connection between the employee’s injuries and his work and if he is without any duty to perform at that time for his employer. Of the 12 cases, 9 involved employees injured on the way to or from work, but off the employer’s premises, and the remaining 3 had nothing to do with injuries sustained while on the way to or from work. Accordingly, none of the 12 is authority for the proposition that an injury sustained while ■on the way to or from work but on the premises of employment does not arise out of or in the course of employment. The same may be said of those other cases discussed in the majority opinion in Daniel which had to do, in the main, with injuries sustained on the premises, not while the employee was going to or from his work but while engaged in actions outside- the ambit of and in no way connected with or incident to his employment, in which it was held that the nexus of his employment had been broken by such factors as misconduct, unauthorized or forbidden action, or action for his own pleasure or in his own interests, all entirely disconnected from employment and not at all incident thereto as are, in contradistinction, the acts of ministration' by a servant to himself mentioned in the above quotation from Haller. Going to or from work, while on the premises, is an incident of employment, as was, also, plaintiff’s parking his automobile on defendant’s lot. Daniel should be overruled.

Plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The award should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.