Court Opinion

ID: 9693229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:31:05.716008+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:43.003821
License: Public Domain

Sharpe, J.
(dissenting). I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice Black, either as to the construction of the 1954 amendment or that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and during the- course of her employment.
Whether the act has retroactive effect to include injuries occurring prior to the effective date-of the act need not be decided in this case as the act clearly relates to employees going to or from work. It does not include injuries to persons going upon- a personal errand not in any way connected with his or her work.
My Brother relies upon Haller v. City of Lansing, 195 Mich 753 (LRA1917E, 324), to establish the rule that injuries during intermissions from labor are compensable if the injury occurs upon the employer’s premises. The rule established in that case as interpreted by Justice Black has been overruled in a great number of cases, reference to which can be found in Mack v. Reo Motors, Inc., 345 Mich 268.
Decision in the case at bar is controlled by Salmon v. Bagley Laundry Co., 344 Mich 471. In that case we said (pp 474, 475):
“The law is well settled that an industrial injury is compensable only when the injury is received while the employee is doing the duty he is employed .to perform, and as a natural incident of the work, see Associated Oil Co. v. Industrial Accident Commission, 191 Cal 557 (217 P 744), cited with approv*98al in Tegels v. Kaiser-Fraser Corp., 329 Mich 84. * * *
“The right to control or direct an employee is an .essential element in determining whether the relationship of employer and employee exists. In Tuttle v. Embury-Martin Lumber Co., 192 Mich 385 (Ann Cas 1918C, 664), we held that the test of the relationship is the right to control, whether in fact exercised or not. See, also, Dennis v. Sinclair Lumber & Fuel Co., 242 Mich 89; and Janofski v. Federal Land Bank, 302 Mich 124. In cases involving independent contractors the right to direct or control is absent. In the case at bar, as in the Tegels Case, supra, the right to control the actions or activities of the employees during the noon hour lunch period -or coffee-break period was absent.”
The award should be vacated, with costs to defendant.
Carr, J., concurred with Sharpe, J.