Levinson v. Payson

Michigan Court of Appeals

Levinson v. Payson

40 Mich. App. 415

CourtMichigan Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 1, 1972

DocketDocket No. 11060

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 Mich. App. 415 (Levinson v. Payson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Levinson v. Payson, 40 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was injured by a fall in defendants’ home where she was a domestic worker. She recovered workmen’s compensation benefits through the labor broker who assigned her to work for defendants. Plaintiff brought this suit against defendants as third-party tortfeasors [416]*416and appeals an accelerated judgment in their favor.

Plaintiff argues that since she was a domestic worker in defendants’ home, defendants are not liable under the workmen’s compensation act, MCLA 418.118; MSA 17.237(118), and are not protected by it. The unrebutted affidavit accompanying defendants’ motion for accelerated judgment set forth that defendants had, through the labor broker, voluntarily secured workmen’s compensation insurance coverage. This is permissible under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. MCLA 418.121; MSA 17.237(121). On these facts, the case is indistinguishable from and governed by Renfroe v Higgins Rack Coating & Manufacturing Co, Inc, 17 Mich App 259 (1969).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was injured by a fall in defendants’ home where she was a domestic worker. She recovered workmen’s compensation benefits through the labor broker who assigned her to work for defendants. Plaintiff brought this suit against defendants as third-party tortfeasors [416]*416and appeals an accelerated judgment in their favor.

Plaintiff argues that since she was a domestic worker in defendants’ home, defendants are not liable under the workmen’s compensation act, MCLA 418.118; MSA 17.237(118), and are not protected by it. The unrebutted affidavit accompanying defendants’ motion for accelerated judgment set forth that defendants had, through the labor broker, voluntarily secured workmen’s compensation insurance coverage. This is permissible under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. MCLA 418.121; MSA 17.237(121). On these facts, the case is indistinguishable from and governed by Renfroe v Higgins Rack Coating & Manufacturing Co, Inc, 17 Mich App 259 (1969).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 Mich. App. 415, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/levinson-v-payson-michctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack