Court Opinion

ID: 9662108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:59:38.526465+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:36.908244
License: Public Domain

Sharpe, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to concur in the opinion of Mr. Chief Justice Butzel. In this case, as in all other compensation cases, claimant must produce affirmative evidence to sustain the burden of proof that decedent suffered an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The law applicable to the facts in this case is well stated in Wiltse v. Borden’s Farm Products Company, 328 Mich 257, where we again quoted and approved of the following (p 265):
“‘(1) The burden of proving a right to compensation is on the party asserting that right. Pucilowski v. Packard Motor Car Co., 278 Mich 240; Veek v. Wesley Freight Co., 306 Mich 485. (2) In awarding compensation to a plaintiff, the department may not *321indulge in the assumption of a mere possibility in the nature of a guess as to whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation. Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich 130, 137; Marman v. Detroit Edison Co., 268 Mich 166. (3) Workmen’s compensation provided by the act is not intended to be either sickness, health, or life insurance or to provide benefits for employees suffering from- ordinary diseases of life.’ (Citing numerous cases.) Riley v. Kohlenberg, 316 Mich 144, 148.
“ ‘ “If an inference favorable to the applicant can only be arrived at by conjecture or speculation the applicant may not recover. So if there are 2 or more inferences equally consistent with the facts, arising out of the established facts, the applicant must fail.” ’ Chaudier v. Stearns & Culver Lumber Co., 206 Mich 433, 442 (5 ALR. 1673), quoting Ginsberg v. Burroughs Adding Machine Co., 204 Mich 130, wherein numerous cases are cited.
“The rules just above stated have been adhered to and made the basis of decision in recent cases of this Court. See Cromie v. Florez, Incorporated, 317 Mich 516; Trumble v. Michigan State Police, 325 Mich 237; Daniel v. Murray Corporation of America, 326 Mich 1.”
In writing for affirmance, Mr. Chief Justice Btjtzel bases his opinion upon the following:
“Under the facts established by the testimony, we cannot say that the commission was in error in concluding that a compelling inference existed that decedent accidentally contacted cyanide during his employment.”
The commission, in making an award, reasoned as follows:
“There was cyanide present in the building in which he worked and although he did not use it in the performance of his duties, his proximity to it made contact with it possible. * * *
*322“The logical inquiry is where then did he contact the cyanide and the only reasonable answer is that he must have accidentally come in contact with the substance in the building where he worked and that he carried it home on his person. The precise manner in which it was ingested at home need not be established.”
It is the purest speculation to say that decedent came in contact with cyanide while at work, as his work did not call for the use or handling of cyanide in any form. Moreover, his work was about 420 feet from the place where cyanide was used. There is no evidence that decedent walked through the heat-treat department on the night in question. There is some conjecture that decedent got cyanide on his shoes and from them to his mouth. Again, this in conjecture of the purest kind. It was also advanced that possibly decedent got cyanide under his fingernails and later in his mouth after he reached home. The record clearly shows that decedent had no opportunity while at work to get cyanide on his clothes or any part of his body. We need not surmise how decedent received or when he ingested the cyanide, as this burden does not fall on defendant. Claimant has the burden of showing that decedent came in contact with cyanide during the course of his employment. There is no basis for an award in the case at bar. The award should be reversed and remanded for entry of an order denying compensation. Defendant should recover costs.