Court Opinion

ID: 9713157
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:09:31.044983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.051788
License: Public Domain

*698Black, J.
(after stating the facts). As I read the multitudinous pages and the various opinions one finds under the title of Sheppard v. Michigan National Bank, 348 Mich 577, our massive chirographic effort in that case arrived at this result; Mr. Justice Smith’s dissent in Wieda v. American Box Board Company, 343 Mich 182, 191, became and now re*699mains reliable Michigan law. In another related direction the same metamorphous change took place —that of adopting earlier dissenting opinions, and earlier prevailing opinions, as the law of onr State. I refer here to the succession of opinions shown in Dyer v. Sears, Roebuck & Company, 350 Mich 92; and Freiborg v. Chrysler Corporation, 350 Mich 104.
It is time now to complete the cycle of departure from and return to all of the measures by which, under the clear weight of authority in this country, the relationship of employer and employee is rightfully identified for compensatory purposes. I move,, then, with sight aimed at definite settlement of the steadily recurring question the parties — in the light of the quoted and adopted finding of facts — have stated and counter stated, that we now establish Mr. Justice Smith’s dissenting opinion in Powell v. Employment Security Commission, 345 Mich 455, 462, as proper guide to relevant interpretation of the workmen’s compensation law. Tested by such dissent, the appeal hoard was clearly right in holding that the relationship of employer and employee existed between plaintiff’s decedent, and the defendant Muskovitz, at the time of the fatal cave-in of the trench.
I vote to affirm the award.
Smith, Edwards, Voelkeb, and Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with Black, J.