Case Name: WALKER v. RIDLEY CLEANERS, INC.
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1945-04-09
Citations: 311 Mich. 4
Docket Number: Docket No. 33, Calendar No. 42,742
Parties: WALKER v. RIDLEY CLEANERS, INC.
Judges: Starr, C. J., and North, Btjtzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Eeid, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 311
Pages: 4–5

Head Matter:
WALKER v. RIDLEY CLEANERS, INC.
Workmen’s Compensation — Minors—Double Compensation — Misrepresentation of Age — Good Eaith.
Minor, 16 years of age, who misrepresented his age as 18 in writing when hired by defendant was not entitled to award of double compensation for injury to arms sustained in rug-cleaning operations where his prevarication was not negatived by his apparent age.
Appeal from Department of Labor and Industry.
Submitted January 4, 1945.
(Docket No. 33, Calendar No. 42,742.)
Decided April 9, 1945.
Rehearing denied May 14, 1945.
William Walker, a .minor, by Charles Walker presented his claim for compensation against Rid-ley Cleaners, Lie., employer, and Consolidated Underwriters, insurer. Award of double compensation to plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Reversed and remanded1 for entry of award of single compensation. f
George G. Parzen {Dawn $ Atlas, of counsel), for plaintiff.
James F. Land {Kerr, Lacey S Scroggie, of counsel), for defendants.
Lester E. Deeley, for defendant Ridley Cleaners, Inc.

Opinion:
Wiest, J.
In November, 1942, defendant Ridley Cleaners, Inc., employed plaintiff, a 16-year-old boy, to work in its rug cleaning department, upon his written representation that he was 18 years of age. In the course of such employment the boy, while engaged in putting a 9 by 12 rug through an electric wringer, reached out his hand- to pull a wrinkle out of the rug, slipped' and the rolls of the machine caught his hands, resulting in loss of his right forearm and use of his left arm. Defendant Eidley Cleaners, Inc., were operating under the workmen's compensation law, with defendant Consolidated Underwriters as liability insurance carrier. Upon application, the department of labor and industry awarded plaintiff1 double compensation from which award this appeal was taken.
Eight to single compensation is conceded and the question turns upon whether, under the circumstances here involved, the right to double compensation was warranted. The answer to the question is found in our holding to the contrary in Boshaw v. J. J. Newberry Co., 259 Mich. 333 (83 A. L. R. 412). The employer must act in good faith and under circumstances reasonably showing entrapment of hiring by .the applicant's prevarication as to age and not negatived by his apparent age. See Blanton v. Clay Products Co., 310 Mich. 635. The department was in error in awarding double compensation. We find no occasion to discuss other alleged errors.
The award is set aside and the case remanded to the department of labor and industry to enter an award of single compensation, Defendants will recover costs.
Starr, C. J., and North, Btjtzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Eeid, JJ., concurred.