Court Opinion

ID: 9852364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:29:12.122236+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:22:26.603114
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.
(dissenting). I am forced to dissent from my brothers’ opinion for two reasons.
First, I believe that the record sustains the findings of fact of the Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board. The board found that the automobile was the plaintiffs. The plaintiff testified that the Opel Rallye automobile, in which the accident occurred, was "more or less my car”. The appeal board further found that the plaintiff was coming from his home and that as a matter of fact, the home was not a corporate office. These findings are substantiated by the record.
The board found, that the record discloses plaintiff was on his first day at work, and was injured while driving with his father to their mutual place of employment. I cannot determine how any of the above findings become questions of law as the majority contends.
Second, I find Thomas v Certified Refrigeration, Inc, 392 Mich 623; 221 NW2d 378 (1974), relied on by the majority distinguishable from the instant case. In Thomas, supra, plaintiffs duties were specifically defined. His taking the truck home was established as being in the course of his employment. We must accept the findings of fact by the appeal board by constitution and statute since the record presents supporting evidence. The board did not find that the father was in any sense directing the activities of his son in being driven to work. The majority presumes this from a silent record.
Pure logic dictates that the Workmen’s Compensation Act was not intended to cover an accident *293in a claim arising out of these facts. We have nothing more here than an employee who was injured while driving from his home to his employment on his first day of work, driving his own automobile, accompanied by his father.
I would affirm.