Case Name: HATFIELD v. THOMPSON
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1969-05-26
Citations: 17 Mich. App. 375
Docket Number: Docket No. 6,492
Parties: HATFIELD v. THOMPSON
Judges: BEFORE: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Dan-hoe, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 17
Pages: 375–376

Head Matter:
HATFIELD v. THOMPSON
1. Workmen’s Compensation — Automobiles—Fellow Employees— Parking Lot.
The workmen’s compensation act is the exclusive remedy for a plaintiff who was injured when his ear and a fellow employee’s car collided on the employer-owned parking lot as they were leaving the premises during lunch hour (CL 1948, §411.1 et seq., as amended).
2. Courts — Authority of Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals does not have authority to overrule deeisions of the Michigan Supreme Court.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1] 58 Am Jur, Workmen’s Compensation § 48 et seq.
[2] 20 Am Jur 2d, Courts § 87 et seq.
Appeal from Genesee, Donald R. Freeman, J. Submitted Division 2 May 6, 1969, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 6,492.)
Decided May 26, 1969.
Leave to appeal denied February 17, 1970.
See 383 Mich 766.
Complaint by Clifford Hatfield against Fred H. Thompson for personal injuries sustained in automobile collision. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Howard G. Fisher, for plaintiff.
Brownell, Gault & Andrews (Douglas M. Philpott, of counsel), for defendant.
BEFORE: Lesinski, C. J., and Quinn and Dan-hoe, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff and defendant are fellow employees. Their cars collided on the employer-owned parking lot as they were leaving the premises during lunch hour. Plaintiff was injured and filed an action for personal injuries. Defendant moved for accelerated judgment or summary judgment under GCR 1963, 116.1(1) and 117.2(1) on the basis that plaintiff's exclusive remedy was under the workmen's compensation act. The motion was granted and plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff concedes that the trial court was correct on the authority of Ladner v. Vander Band (1965), 376 Mich 321, and Simerka v. Pridemore (1968), 380 Mich 250, and in effect requests this Court to overrule Ladner and Simerka. We have no authority to do so.
Affirmed with costs to defendant.
CL 1948, § 411.1 et seq. (Stat Ann 1968 Rev § 17.141 et seq.).