Court Opinion

ID: 9724518
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:00:02.326617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:01.985765
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction, 371 Mich 622, proves again that Mark Antony was right when he said that the evil men do lives after them, and that the good they do is “oft interred with their bones.”  Baas was handed down December 2, 1963, just before a crucial vote left the Court. 2 Yet it is controlling precedent now, for the appeal board below at least, and foretells what is due indefinitely for all “twofold purpose” cases. 
The appeal board wrote, for this case of Turner:
“While this matter has been pending before us our Supreme Court, in a 5-3 decision, reversed an award of compensation to a school teacher who was seriously injured while on her way to school. See Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction, 371 Mich 622. The majority held that the decision in Murphy v. Flint Board of Education, 314 Mich 226, another school teacher case, was controlling of the issue before it. Justice Black wrote not only a vigorous dissent but followed up with a supplemental opinion *193of like tenor. The majority and the dissenting opinions do not separate on the fact that in either the Murphy Case, supra, or the Baas Case there was a lack of knowledge or expectation of performance of duties at home but rather upon the question as to whether the traveling done by these plaintiffs truly was a hazard of the employment.
“In the matter before us it appears that there is not even a starting point of necessity, expectation or authorization, prerequisites, we believe, to an inference that the traveling back to the office might be considered an incident to and part of deceased’s employment.”
In Baas the appeal board found — with fair record support — all facts requisite to recovery by claimant Irene Baas under the aforesaid “twofold purpose” rule. The board was reversed for reasons attested separately by Justices Carr, Dethmers and Kelly, and for reasons given separately by Justices O’Hara and Smith. Now, manifestly obedient to Baas, the appeal board has found — again with fair record support — facts sufficient to authorize denial of recovery by the widow Turner, another claimant under such “twofold purpose” rule.
If affirmance is due here, so was it due in Baas. Since I believe in upholding the appeal board when “there is any evidence to support the award” (quotation from Meyers v. Michigan C. R. Co., 199 Mich 134, 137), my vote to affirm this case of Turner is east along with another vote; a vote of commiseration for the members of an administrative hoard who are bound to follow submissively a decision like Baas v. Society for Christian Education, supra.

 Rehearing of Baas was denied shortly after by vote of an equally divided court. 371 Mich at 655.