Case ID: mich_242/html/0449-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Potter, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WELLS v. LEE PAPER CO.
    Master and Servant — Workmen’s Compensation Act — Loss op Eye- — -Evidence—Suppiciency.
    In proceedings under the workmen’s compensation act, evidence that an employee, while engaged in unloading a car load of lime, got some lime in his eye, which resulted in loss of sight, and that prior thereto he had had no trouble with it, was sufficient to sustain an award of compensation therefor, as against the employer’s contention that there was no accident.
    Workmen’s Compensation Acts, C. J. § 114.
    Certiorari to Department of Labor and Industry.
    Submitted April 11, 1928.
    (Docket No. 101.)
    Decided June 4, 1928.
    William Wells presented his claim for compensation against the Lee Paper Company for the accidental loss of an eye in defendant’s employ. From an order awarding compensation, defendant and the Michigan Mutual Liability Company, insurer, bring certiorari.
    Affirmed.
    
      L. J. Carey, for appellants.
    C. S. Carney, for appellee.
   Potter, J.

Plaintiff, employed by the Lee Paper Company of Vicksburg, Michigan, which was insured in the Michigan Mutual Liability Company, claiming to have been injured in the course of his employment by accidentally getting quick line in his eye, presented a claim for compensation for the loss of sight of an eye. From an award of compensation by the department of labor and industry, defendants bring certiorari.

■ There is evidence that on Friday, May 6,1927, plaintiff, with other workmen, was engaged in unloading a car load of lime. It was a windy day. Some lime got in plaintiff’s eye. Prior thereto plaintiff had had no trouble with his eye. An eye specialist testified for defendants he did not know what caused the condition suffered by plaintiff. If plaintiff got unslacked lime in his eye defendants’ specialist testified it would injure it. There is testimony that the company’s physician took particles of. lime from plaintiff’s eye with tweezers. Defendants contend there was no accident and plaintiff’s condition was not the result of the injury complained of. The department of labor and industry found otherwise.. There was evidence to sustain the opinion .of the department, whose award is affirmed.

Fead, C. J., and North, Fellows, Wiest, Clark, McDonald, and Sharpe, JJ., concurred.’