St. Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House

178 N.W. 705, 211 Mich. 285, 1920 Mich. LEXIS 685
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 20, 1920
DocketDocket No. 7
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 178 N.W. 705 (St. Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House) 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
St. Clair v. A. H. Meyer Music House, 178 N.W. 705, 211 Mich. 285, 1920 Mich. LEXIS 685 (Mich. 1920).

Opinion

Clark, J.

The defendant A. H. Meyer Music House, a corporation, was engaged in the business of selling and delivering pianos and other musical instruments. Applicant, having 35 years’ experience in that business, was in its employ and he and one other employee, Frank G. Swift, were directed to deliver a piano to a customer of said defendant. The piano was to be delivered to the second floor of a building reached by a steep, narrow stairway of about 20 steps. The truck upon which the piano was carried was backed to the front, of the building, the piano being upon a piano skid, which resembles a sled, the runners being polished to slide easily. To the front end of the skid a rope was attached which looped from the front end of the right runner to the front end of the left runner. The rope was used in lifting. In going up the stairs applicant was in front of the piano and Mr. Swift behind. Applicant was assisted by a lady who “was not very strong,” and a man who “was very weak,” both inexperienced in that work. A minister and a lady of the neighborhood, likewise inexperienced, attempted to assist Mr. Swift. With such assistance as they had, applicant lifting in front and Mr. Swift pushing behind, the piano was taken up the stairs step by step. "When the last step was reached the piano was pulled and pushed forward until its center was over the last stair riser, when it was “broken over” to rest flat on the floor. Applicant testified that the last pull was the hardest, that the piano weighed about 900 pounds, and that just as he was making the last pull he felt something give way in his head. He immediately became ill. A physician was called who found a rupture of a blood vessel, an artery, of the brain — cerebral hemorrhage — causing and resulting in paralysis of the left side. The physician testified that the rupture of the blood vessel was due to high blood [287]*287pressure caused by the unusual exertion, the lift, sudden straining, and that applicant’s arteries were weakened by disease, arterio sclerosis. There was an award in favor of applicant, and it is here the sole contention of defendants, plaintiffs in certiorari, that there was no evidence of accidental injury arising out of and in the course of applicant’s employment.

The fact that applicant was predisposed because of disease to this form of attack is immaterial and has nothing to do with the question whether what befell him is to be regarded as an accident or not. See La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co., 190 Mich., at page 607.

Justice Stone, speaking for the court in Guthrie v. Shipbuilding Co., 200 Mich., at page 360, said:

“That an injury received by a workman while engaged in his usual work, without intervention of something unusual or fortuitous, is not an accident, is now so well established by our decisions, that the proposition needs no discussion.”

See, also, Schroetke v. Jackson-Church Co., 193 Mich., at page 622 (L. R. A. 1917D, 64):

Bringing this case, within the rule as above stated the board found unusual and fortuitous circumstances:

“This applicant was lifting at a disadvantage. He was doing unusual work; in fact, two men were practically attempting to do the work which ordinarily required the efforts of four or five. They were working under unusual apprehension on account of the lack of help and the inexperience of the women and men who were endeavoring to assist them. The injury occurred at a point where it was necessary to put forth the greatest effort and at a time when apprehension of danger was evidently the greatest. * * * The applicant was. called upon at this particular point to put forth unusual effort under unusual and fortuitous circumstances and the unusual happened.”

The board is the trier of the facts. If there is evidence supporting the finding of unusual and fortuitous [288]*288circumstances above quoted the award must be affirmed.

Mr. Swift testified:
“Q. When you ordinarily deliver a piano upstairs, whether or not it is customary to take more than two experienced men to deliver the piano?
“A. Why, we usually do, yes.
“Q. How many do you usually have?
“A. We generally have four good strong men.
“Q. Experienced?
“A. Four or five, yes, that know what to do.
“Q. And so far as, you know Mr. St. Clair didn’t know either that the piano was to be delivered upstairs ?
“A. Well, I don’t know that he did; we might have talked it over when we got near there. I think he mentioned something about, when we got there, near there, he thought it would have to go upstairs.
“Q. What did you do when you got there?
“A. Well, when we first got there we run the truck in as near as we could to the place; I think I backed up to the stoop, and we went to see the lady, Mrs. Blok, told her we had her piano for her and wanted to deliver it, and then we commenced to investigate to see about getting some help, it was quite a job, so she said she knew of some people that would help us, there was a lady there named Mrs. Strick, she got her husband over there, then she says, T will go and call the dominie’ of the Reformed 'church I think, and so we got him too. Finally we got started upstairs.
“Q. At the time you got started did you have sufficient help? •
“A. Why, no, I don’t believe we did have sufficient help as we should have to get the piano up.
“Q. Why not?
“A. Well, Mr. Strick, the gentleman who helped in front with Mrs. Blok, he is a very weak man, he wasn’t strong, and I didn’t know that so much then as I did after we got up there.
“Q. Then you started to move the piano upstairs?
“A. Yes. When we started the first step we have , to lift that on and when you get that some ways up you shove it up until about an inch or so of the step, [289]*289then they give it another raise and when you raise it you give it another push until you get it so it is on the incline of the stairway, get it level with the stairway.
“Q. Ordinarily you have more than one man working at the front end of the piano?
“A. Oh, yes, usually three.
“Q. And usually three?
“A. Three men.
“Q. And at that time you had practically Mr. St. Clair doing the work?
“A. Mr. St. Clair had to do the heft of the business, because there was one lady that wasn’t very strong. Mrs. Blok did what she could do but couldn’t do much and Mr. Strick wasn’t a strong man.
“Q. And Mr. St. Clair took and handled both ropes?
“A. Yes, sir, and they were doing as much as they could.
“Q.

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

Related

Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank
83 N.W.2d 614 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1957)
Nichols v. Central Crate & Box Co.
65 N.W.2d 706 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1954)
Kasarewski v. Hupp Motor Car Corp.
23 N.W.2d 689 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1946)
Cain v. C. C. Anderson Co.
133 P.2d 723 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1943)
Smallegan v. John Smallegan & Sons
256 N.W. 435 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1934)
Schemmel v. T. B. Gatch & Sons Contracting & Building Co.
166 A. 39 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1933)
Riggs v. Ash Grove Lime & Portland Cement Co.
272 P. 153 (Supreme Court of Kansas, 1928)
Crescent Coal Co. v. Simmons
116 So. 512 (Supreme Court of Alabama, 1928)
Kallgren v. C. W. Lunquist Co.
216 N.W. 241 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1927)
Piggott v. Ross & Wentworth
209 N.W. 47 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1926)
Bunker v. Motor Wheel Corporation
204 N.W. 110 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1925)
Fribley v. Michigan Milling Co.
190 N.W. 654 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Fritz v. Rudy Furnace Co.
188 N.W. 528 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Carvey v. W. D. Young & Co.
188 N.W. 392 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)
Helder v. Luce Furniture Co.
187 N.W. 263 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 N.W. 705, 211 Mich. 285, 1920 Mich. LEXIS 685, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/st-clair-v-a-h-meyer-music-house-mich-1920.