Opinion ID: 2131797
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Plaintiff-appellant Leslie Kroll was injured and paralyzed from the waist down on July 23, 1965 while operating a forklift truck during the course of his employment with Superior Sliding Door Frame Company. In January of 1966, he brought suit against Hyster Company, the manufacturer of the forklift truck. Louise Kroll, his wife, joined in the suit seeking damages for loss of her husband's services, society, advice and affection. The workmen's compensation insurer for Kroll's employer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, intervened. After the first trial, Kroll moved for and was granted a new trial. In the second trial, the jury returned a verdict for Leslie Kroll in the amount of $175,000 and for Louise Kroll in the amount of $50,000. Subsequent to judgment, a hearing was held for the purpose of dividing the judgment pursuant to MCLA 418.827; MSA 17.237(827). The trial judge ordered $32,337.39 to be paid to the carrier to reimburse it for compensation it had paid to Kroll, but added that the carrier must pay to Kroll's attorney, who did most of the legal work in the lawsuit, 33-1/3% of that sum, i.e., $10,779.13 as attorney fees and $182.16 as the carrier's share of other expenses. The balance of the recovery was to go to Kroll and his attorney. Kroll's portion of the recovery was to serve as a credit against any future compensation that the insurer would be liable to pay. However, the carrier was ordered to pay, in monthly installments, one-third of any future compensation benefits for which it would subsequently have been liable independent of the recovery, to cover its share of the expense of gaining its interest in the recovery. The insurer appealed to the Court of Appeals, alleging 1) that the statute entitled it to be compensated for attorney fees out of the employee's recovery and 2) that the trial court's method of awarding attorneys' fees was unreasonable. The Court of Appeals agreed with the insurer on the first issue and remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine the value of the services of the insurer's attorney. The Court of Appeals did not speak to the second issue. Kroll applied to this Court for leave to appeal, the insurer cross-appealed, and we granted leave on January 3, 1974.