Nelson v. DETROIT COUNTRY CLUB

Michigan Supreme Court

Nelson v. DETROIT COUNTRY CLUB

45 N.W.2d 362, 329 Mich. 479

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedJanuary 8, 1951

DocketDocket 30, Calendar 44,832

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 45 N.W.2d 362 (Nelson v. DETROIT COUNTRY CLUB) 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

Nelson v. DETROIT COUNTRY CLUB, 45 N.W.2d 362, 329 Mich. 479 (Mich. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

Dethmers, J.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant country club as a caddy. While he was caddying, a rainstorm arose. Plaintiff, another caddy, and 3 players sought shelter under nearby trees. Lightning struck the tree under which plaintiff was standing and he was thrown to the ground, receiving electrical shock and other injuries. The deputy commissioner denied plaintiff’s claim for workmen’s compensation, holding that the injuries were the result of an act of God and did not arise out of his employment. The commission held, on the contrary, that plaintiff’s injuries arose out of his employment *481 and awarded compensation for the 3-month period of his disability and payment of medical, surgical and hospital expenses. Defendants appeal.

Did plaintiff’s injuries arise out of his employment? Kla winski v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 185 Mich 643 (LRA1916A, 342), and Thier v. Widdifield, 210 Mich 355, are conclusive of an answer in the negative. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish from those eases on the basis of the existence in this ease of the opinion testimony of an electrical engineer, who is an expert in the field of lightning, to the effect that persons in wide open spaces are subject to greater hazards from lightning than those in or near buildings, in protected areas, or in small open spaces. The presence of such testimony in the record gives rise to a distinction without a difference and fails to support the commission’s finding that the injuries arose out of the employment. The test to be applied is laid down in the Klawinshi Case, as follows:

“It is clear * * * that this injury was in no way caused by or connected with his employment through any agency of man which combined with the elements to produce the injury; that plaintiff’s decedent by reason of his employment was in no way exposed to injuries from lightning other than the community generally in that locality.”

There is no showing that plaintiff here was, by reason of his employment, in any way exposed to injuries from lightning other than the community generally in the locality in question or that there was anything about his employment which, through any agency of man, combined with the. elements to produce the injury.

Reversed.

Reid, C. J., and Boyles, North, Butzel, Carr, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.

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

Dethmers, J.

Plaintiff was employed by defendant country club as a caddy. While he was caddying, a rainstorm arose. Plaintiff, another caddy, and 3 players sought shelter under nearby trees. Lightning struck the tree under which plaintiff was standing and he was thrown to the ground, receiving electrical shock and other injuries. The deputy commissioner denied plaintiff’s claim for workmen’s compensation, holding that the injuries were the result of an act of God and did not arise out of his employment. The commission held, on the contrary, that plaintiff’s injuries arose out of his employment *481 and awarded compensation for the 3-month period of his disability and payment of medical, surgical and hospital expenses. Defendants appeal.

Did plaintiff’s injuries arise out of his employment? Kla winski v. Lake Shore & Michigan Southern Railway Co., 185 Mich 643 (LRA1916A, 342), and Thier v. Widdifield, 210 Mich 355, are conclusive of an answer in the negative. Plaintiff seeks to distinguish from those eases on the basis of the existence in this ease of the opinion testimony of an electrical engineer, who is an expert in the field of lightning, to the effect that persons in wide open spaces are subject to greater hazards from lightning than those in or near buildings, in protected areas, or in small open spaces. The presence of such testimony in the record gives rise to a distinction without a difference and fails to support the commission’s finding that the injuries arose out of the employment. The test to be applied is laid down in the Klawinshi Case, as follows:

“It is clear * * * that this injury was in no way caused by or connected with his employment through any agency of man which combined with the elements to produce the injury; that plaintiff’s decedent by reason of his employment was in no way exposed to injuries from lightning other than the community generally in that locality.”

There is no showing that plaintiff here was, by reason of his employment, in any way exposed to injuries from lightning other than the community generally in the locality in question or that there was anything about his employment which, through any agency of man, combined with the. elements to produce the injury.

Reversed.

Reid, C. J., and Boyles, North, Butzel, Carr, Bushnell, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 N.W.2d 362, 329 Mich. 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nelson-v-detroit-country-club-mich-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack