Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

ed by the disease, there is yet no point at which the consequences of the injury cease to operate. It is the theory of respondents, not that the consequences of the injury cease, but that they are prolonged and extended. There is no part of the period of disability that would have happened, or would have continued, except for the injury. The conse quences of the injury extend through the entire period. And so long as the incapacity of the employe for work results from the injury it comes within the statute, even when prolonged by pre-existing disease.

The order of the Industrial Accident Board is affirmed.

SUPREME COURT.

MARY BAYER,

Claimant and Appellee,

V8.

CHARLES F. BAYER,

and UNION CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,

Respondents and Appellants.

INSURANCE CARRIER-LIMITATION OF POLICY.
Where the policy limits the insurer's liability to injuries of em-

ployes of the assured occurring while engaged in certain specified
labors, the insurer cannot be held liable for an injury to an em-
ploye while engaged in undertakings which are clearly outside
those specified in the policy.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board to review an award made against both respondents. Modified as to insurer.

Edward S. Grece, of Detroit, for claimant.
Walters & Hicks, of Detroit, for respondents.

There was testimony to support the finding that claimant's decedent and husband was employed by respondent Charles F. Bayer and upon his business when he was killed. Whether the risk was one assumed by respondent Union Casualty Company is the debatable question.

Respondent Union Casualty Company issued to respondent Charles F. Bayer its policy of insurance. Upon the policy is a rider which reads:

“The policy to which this endorsement is attached is extended to cover, and the undersigned company does hereby agree to assume and perform each and every obligation imposed upon the assured by Act No. 10, Public Acts, Extra Session, 1912, State of Michigan, and the election of the assured thereunder that is required of the assured to do and perform on account of personal injuries (including death resulting therefrom), sustained by any employe or em. ployes of the assured while this policy is in force, and arising out of and in the course of his or their employment by said assured, in the operation of and in connection with the business herein stated."

The business of the insured is stated in the policy as fol. lows:

"Place where the work is to be done: State of Michigan. Kind of work to be done: Contractors, buildings wooden, or frame private residences, flats, apartment, flats with stores underneath, one story stores and stores with offices above, private stables and private garages, exclusively, and buildings not mercantile or factory; all not exceeding three stories and basement in height, including jobbing work connected therewith; no blasting. This classification does not include the erection of churches, theatres, or buildings iņtended for city and county or municipal use, such as court houses, city halls or capitol buildings."

The policy is not returned, and we have no further information about its terms. It is contended that claimant's decedent was not killed while performing any duty in connection with the said business. The facts may be briefly related.

Claimant's decedent was the father of Charles F. Bayer,

was employed by him and by no one else. Sometimes he was employed in and about the business described in the policy of insurance. Charles F. Bayer owned a horse and wagon and this, his father driving the horse, was sometimes employed in the said business. Charles F. Bayer had a brother, William, a painter. This brother was not his partner nor, except upon contract relations, employed by Charles F. Bayer. He did business upon his own account, working for others as well as for his brother. They had separate shops. By an arrangement between the brothers, William was to pay onehalf the expense of feeding the horse belonging to Charles, and Charles, in consideration thereof, was to move, with the horse and wagon, material and apparatus of William, used in his business, from place to place, as required by William. From time to time, depending upon the jobs secured by William, and upon William's request, the horse and wagon and claimant's decedent were so employed. A job of painting had been completed by William at Lakeside. Charles had no interest in it; had not constructed or repaired the building, but upon request of William sent his father and the horse and wagon to Lakeside to draw into Detroit, to his brother's shop, the ladders, etc., belonging to William. It was while returning to Detroit with William's material and apparatus upon the wagon that claimant's decedent was killed, upon the tracks of an electric railroad, by a car.

The chairman of the arbitration committee said, in the course of the hearing:

"It doesn't matter whether he was hauling for a grocery store, as far as this case is concerned. If he was under this man's control and selected by him and paid by him, that is the particular point.”

Two of the arbitrators awarded claimant six dollars a week for three hundred weeks. The third arbitrator refused to concur. Upon appeal, the Industrial Accident Board modified the action of the arbitrators and awarded $5.50 per week for a like period.

OSTRANDER, J. (After stating the facts):

It is obvious that the policy of insurance, or of indemnity, is not an undertaking of the insurer to respond in all cases for injuries to, or death of, any employe of the assured, in any employment. The purpose plainly is to limit liability to cases of employment "in the operation of and in connection with the business herein stated." If there is any connection between the carpenter contracting business and the business of draying or hauling personal property for third persons, neither the property nor its owner being in any way connected with the business, it is not pointed out and I am unable to discover it. Whether the assured hauled the property of his brother for a consideration, (as he did), or gratuitously, his agent and employe engaged in the hauling was not employed by the assured in the operation of, or in connection with, the business stated in the policy.

Counsel for claimant makes an argument based in part upon the assumption, and assertion, that the statute, Act No. 10, Public Acts, Extra Session, 1912, does not contain the words "arising out of and in the course of his employment," but, unlike the statutes of many states, omits the words "arising out of,” and includes only the words "in the course of his employment." This assumption is unwarranted. Part 2, section 1.

It is not contended that the contract of the insurance company is not controlling according to its terms. It is conceivable that a man may be engaged in more than one business, and as to one or more may elect to come under the terms of the act, and as to another or others elect not to be governed by the act. The declaration of the assured employer is not before us.

Upon this record, and considering only the points presented, it must be held that the order of the Industrial Accident Board, as affecting the respondent insurance company, is invalid. It is vacated.

SUPREME COURT.

CHARLES E. BEAUDRY,

Applicant and Appellee,

VS.
WILLIAM H. WATKINS and BYRON D. RADCLIFFE,

Co-partners doing business as
WATKINS & RADCLIFFE,

Respondents and Appellants.

INTENTIONAL AND WILFUL MISCONDUCT.
Gordon Beaudry, 15 years of age, was employed as a delivery boy

by respondents and was furnished a bicycle with which to do
his work. While engaged in his work and riding on a busy
street in the city of Detroit, he took hold of the rear end of a
motor truck which was proceeding in the same direction. The
truck turned suddenly to the right throwing the boy down on
the pavement. He was run over and killed by another truck
which was following close behind him.

HELD: 1. That the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment.

2. That his action in taking hold of the truck did not constitute intentional and wilful misconduct within the meaning of the law.

Certiorari to the Industrial Accident Board to review an award in favor of applicant. Affirmed.

Francis McGann, of Detroit, for applicant.
Ivin E. Kerr, of Detroit, for respondents.

MOORE, J. The facts are not complicated. On April 29th, 1914, and prior thereto, Gordon Beaudry, nearly fifteen years of age, was employed by Watkins & Radcliffe as a delivery boy and he was furnished a bicycle with which to do his work. On that date he was to make a delivery on Cass avenue.

« AnteriorContinuar »