Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction

Beports. INSTRUCTION. FOR CHRISTIAN BAAS SOCIETY Injury— Compensation — in Traffic Schoolteacher Workmen’s — Cause. Accident Proximate training experience Schoolteacher, limited neophyte such, and had with her books and who was en route to school injured in a traffic papers in her school work when for use held, by compensation rea- workmen’s not entitled to accident school work at fact a substantial amount of son of the she did employer’s practice an established of teachers school, not make her home a second since her homework did being between place employment, there no causal connection injury, transportation between and the by (CLS being employer and home not furnished school 1956, 412.1). § Souris, JJ., dissenting. Kavanagh, Black, Compensation Appeal Appeal from Workmen’s January (Calendar 10, 1963. Board. Submitted 49,949.) 2, No. Decided December No. Docket 24, 1963. February equally

Behearing 1964, denied dissenting opinion on denial of court. See divided application rebearing March for filed J., Black, page 655. 5, 1964, Society against presented ber claim tbe Irene Baas employer, Instruction, Auto-Own- for Christian Company, compensation insurer, Insurance ers injuries collision sustained automobile because occurring en route to and trans- while she was school porting papers she had been books and which in Headnote References Points seq. Jur, Compensation et 58 Am Workmen’s Schoolteacher §§ compensation as an acts. within workmen’s 140 ALR 1383. v. Christian .1963] ... appeal. plaintiff. working. Defendants Award

n Beversed. (Robert McCroskey, Finucan Libner S Marcus, counsel), plaintiff. for Libner, of (Edward Wells, D. Cholette, Perkins <&Buchanan counsel), for defendants. application rehearing: Amici curiae on Mazey, Michigan Rothe, Marston, AFL-CIO (Bernard counsel). $ Freid, M. O’Connell Sachs Michigan Teachers, Kelman, Federation of Downing Craig Craig, (Roger & E. Loria, coun- sel). presented question The sole is: J. Did Kelly, injuries

plaintiff’s arise out of and in the course of employment hearing her as a schoolteacher? The appeal, appeal “no.” referee answered answered On board “yes.” Michigan, who

Plaintiff, Holland, lived in- jured when her automobile collided another as driving grade she school teacher at the to her as a second

Cherry school in Zeeland. appeal plaintiff board found that was a training experience teacher of limited and that she did a substantial amount of school work at which was accordance with an established and approved practice employer’s of teachers at the injury that on school; the weekend before her she papers and'per- took school books and home with formed work at home in connection therewith; traveling at the time of the she was from her home to the school with her books and papers plain- work; in her use school that while tiff could have remained at the school at the conclu- day temperature sion of the work at the school [Dec.' after 4:30, the day, than nsnal during was lower available, were janitor protection services and “was closed; then plaintiff and the cafeteria was con- of a hazard’ injured ‘special direct result which very dangerous highway sisting icy way travel on her to school.” she was compelled refused to appeal board Appellants, claiming to the call attention consider law applicable, Flint fact that cited and relied they Education, directly Board as being point, appeal wholly ignored but board “no attempt made reference distinguish and “their silence we submit is case,” significant.” states that while Appellee, answering, Murphy v. Flint Education “a scholarly Board and care- fully decided case” and “seemingly opposed for which we are “on proposition contending,” yet close proofs Murphy examination do not meas- ure to the instant up particular case”; facts of the Murphy, supra, in the that, “Unlike instant case truly neophyte plaintiff teaching pro- fession. This was her first experience any type of actual educational instruction. Not having had any practical experience or special instruction in in years, teaching prior plaintiff was duty-bound an to make additional effort to her to enable properly perform her work.”

The instant case and Flint Murphy v. Board of Education, supra, are in similar re- following In spects: both (1) cases plaintiffs claimed the of proper performance their duties as a teacher them to do required work at home; Both (2) plain- tiffs were injured while between their journeying and their schools homes and both were carrying school books In papers; (3) both cases the rec- ords justify conclusion that teachers in engaged work school work prepare when necessary outside of in the school which are they employed; Nei- (4) Baas v. Christian injured ther was at home because homework 'or carrying papers injured nor books, was either working papers during while on or books travel from school to and the home, hazards street travel they completed would their been the if have same provided (5) school; work at Neither was trans- portation part as of her and both could they way travel from school to their chose. in homes Murphy opinion says part (p 229): in plaintiff “On behalf it is in claimed, substance, proper performance that teacher as a duties required do her to work at or at least regu- building outside of the school where she was larly employed. hearing Plaintiff testified on the deputy building before the commissioner that the regularly janitor which she worked was locked remaining at 4:30 in the but that teachers afternoon, building get there prior after hour could of the out request employee. o’clock office on Plaintiff claims, however, had she remained building long possible as she would not have had sufficient time to the work that do she wished justifies many do. The record the conclusion that engaged public prepare teachers work school necessary, work, when outside of the school which testimony they employed, princi- are pal plaintiff’s expected he school indicates that plaintiff, prepared, including and to teachers, do home work if such formance required proper per- teaching duties.” agree appellee plain-

We do fact neophyte” legal tiff was “a is sufficientto constitute a for a distinction the instant basis case between Murphy Case. In White v. Public Service Mich Commission, we stated: 282, 287, from mere the fact that

“The inference Commis- home him took work not sioner with would White that to and from Lan- transportation establish a of his part employment. incident to and sing was that the public it the conclusion justify Nor would Niles, in Michi- had another office service commission Flint v. Board Murphy the rule in applied See gan. Dixie Education, Kelly Fuel & Mich Mich 466.” Supply Company, 329 work, The school was building plaintiff’s place fact and the that she did work at home did not make her home a place second of employment. “the Murphy that appellee

We not agree do not is and should bar distinguishable holding from following award this case.” The Education, supra, Flint Board to this applicable (pp case 237, 238, 242): “ claim entirely ‘The is based theory that while at her home she did some work in preparation for her school duties therefore she was employment of her not only course while in but school while from the building, traveling school to her home, and while her own en route It follow also while back school. would from an men’s insurance fund of such of that application work- theory

compensation fund would become general or death covering injury accidental cause, whatever the employee, and wherever Payment and whenever have occurred. would may in this had the injury thus be case been required fall, or in the decedent’s own otherwise, aby caused home. “ ‘Let us the test of hazard of em- again apply whether inquire injury sus- ployment, of or arose out of the employ- tained in the course ment. be, contended, and cannot It is any injury any as a result decedent sustained itself, or that risk or hazard of the was occasioned in the course of or fatal the arose out It not caused employment. 'of'the wise con- or material tools any equipment, 627 with, employment, employment nected had her and the injury no causal connection with the either through its activities, its conditions or its environ respect essentially In ments. this this case differs from cases cited and relied defendant in in in recovery there can error. this he a under the If facts recovery record, then there could ahe like any stenographer, bookkeeper, clerk, the case any employed other in an office,hank, -of factory, place employment, store, or other who any papers, hooks, carried home statements, et n cetera, any purpose at all connected ivith his injury duties, and sustained an while absent from place employment engaged and while in some n actnot any wise connected ivith the duties of employment. disregard entirely That would the test right n award, to such is whether the em which ployment had some causal connection in with the * * * * jury. (Emphasis supplied.) “Applying general principles, recognized in the decisions of court to, above referred and like- can it wise cases cited from other States, testimony on the said basis of the in the record that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course of employment? apparent We think not. It completion on the of her duties in the school build- ing, regular ordinary place which was the of her employment, gone she would have to her home as a matter of course and without to her reference preparation intention to do work there for her teaching further The duties. situation would have precisely incurring been the same, insofar as hazards of street travel were if she had concerned, fully completed leaving schoql. her work before injury engaged any She was not at the time of specific employer. mission for her The rislis incident to street travel did not arise in the course of her under her contract; nor was there ^[*] The Court Ohio St 129, 132, quoted from Industrial Commission (190 NE ALB 1032).—Beporter. Ohio v. Gintert, Reposts.

'causal connection’ between unfortunate that she work that sustained she was re- quired to do.” hearing right refusing referee compensation appeal award. The workmen’s board wrong granting in therefore, the award we and, compensation of reverse award the workmen’s appeal hearing board and reinstate the award of appellants. referee. to Costs C. J., J., concurred Caes, Dethmeks, J. Kelly, (dissenting). J. The distinctive facts of Black, present this case anew most recurrent of all questions arising compensation under the workmen’s plaintiff’s injury law. Did ment and resultant disable scope of arise “out in the of” the course employment? appeal relying par board, ticularly early on the case of Punches v. American (1921), Box Board Co. Mich 342, 216 answered in my upon relying the affirmative. Some of Brethren, the much recent more case of v. Flint Board (1946), 226,1 Education 314 Mich in the answer negative consequently vote reverse the board’s plaintiff. award I in affirmance, turn stand for giving by reasons introduced conclusion of that 350): (p in which was written the Punches Case point something doing “To the that decedent was helpful employer, useful and to see cases cited Spooner Night Saturday Co., v. Detroit 187 Mich 647). (LRA1916A, 125, 131, 17, 132 9 NOCA We opinion support are of that there was evidence to findings of fact of the board. “In Boardman Co., 206, Homan v. Power 200 Mich speaking 208, for the Justice Fellows said: court, seems Note liow Murphy completely ignores order. Punches. More of Punches Baas v. “ finding facts which ultimate ‘If the testimony, support in the finds the award is based it is accept finding duty final, such our Citing cases. of fraud.’ absence holding Court, this been announced has “This many language, varying Ward times. similar but Bros., 180, 197.” v. Heth part phrasing 1 of of section The aforesaid change having since without stood statute (see § 5431; orignial 1915, of 1912 CL enactment §412.1 §8417; and CLS CL CL Ann 1960 Rev [Stat Rev, Ann 1950 Stat Ann, Stat specially 17.151]), § careful scru- seem would phrasing tiny decisions, wherein such earlier of our factually applied interpreted similar accuracy greater to much should lead circumstances, present application interpretive to the section now to ascer- In truth we endeavor facts as found. tain, employed by legislature and from words years ago, by legislature than 40 what the more Court generation intended should be of that specifics shown as bar. done with a case of factual they “Presumably, [the members of the Court background time] about the at the more seated and intended knew scope phrase ‘arising pivotal — employment’ in his found , out of the course of and — part original present 2 of the in section 1 of and (Dyer compensation we do.” than act, workmen’s 95.) Co., 92, Sears, Roebuck & v. during third and second The Justices seated century Two there” indeed. decades of this “were attorneys general other, were them, of one after the years Michigan during enactment, debate, of of compensa- working Michigan’s in of workmen’s and knew the Court well tion the All then members of law. and of this of Great Britain laws and decisions adopted country, presumably which then were 630 371 body legislature when that into voted the act

English wording appears which in said section 1. great jurists, notably These Justices Fellows, today, through and tell us the cases Steere, Bird, presently quoted principles and cited, the Court apply upon approach and should to consideration of “going coming princi- cases; these ples from work” endured unto national seem to have ac- which (if ceptance2 acceptance quarters). in not recent our having general Larson, that in- declared rule juries by employees going sustained when to and regular place from their of work are deemed to goes employment, arise out of and in the course exceptions; exceptions on consider to which indubitably judi- have made administrative and heading cial tasks more difficult. Under the “Dual- purpose applicable going coming” rule as (1 Compensation § Larson’s 18.21, Workmen’s Law, 2 general injuries by employees “The rule is that when sustained going returning regular place from their of work are not employment. deemed to arise out and in the course their Ordi narily they journeys hazards in the employer’s encounter such are not incident general subjoet to the excep business. But this rule is depend particu tions which the nature and circumstances of the employment. lar ‘No exaet formula can be down laid which will automatically every [eiting place generally begins solve case’ While on service eases]. regular is hours at place, a stated there always agreement by may room for which the service be taken to begin Indemnity Company earlier or elsewhere.” Vochl v. Insurance America, 162, North (53 380, 676, US S L Ct ed 245). ALR Mercury Company Britton, And see American Insurance App 285, (314 286), applying DC 280 F2d following Voehl’s rule: general injuries occurring “While the rule is that employees traveling regular place to and from their of work are not deemed to arise constitutes out and in the employment, course their the instant case exception here recog there was a consistent and practice nized that some of deceased’s company services to the were room, being true, carried on and such the commissioner was justified finding to have arisen out of the course employment. Indemnity of the deceased’s Vochl Insurance Co. (53 (1933), 288 US 162 S Ct 77 L ed 245). 87 ALR We are unable to find a distinction of substance between the instant ease Hoage (1935), and Whether the Proctor v. App (81 that of DC 555). F2d agreement express do work at implied by home the course of business should make no difference in the result.” v. Christian helpfully p 247), immediate our states the author question: question becomes: was the business then “The importance it character or

mission of such would trip if someone this necessitated have it in com- to handle had not been able journey?” homeward bination “yes” question, appeal answered board below). quotation expressly (see say INow do not compelled to draw inference that the board simply say that the I did. answer make proof legally' entitled to thus board infer and answer. entitled, if the so

And board was inexorably at affirm- function arrives our reviewable ance. later, will come but first we should

The authorities legally facts, evidence sifted examine supportive appeal conclusion.3 Ac- board’s comparably juxtaposi- cordingly, convenient and in findings array found of summarized I the sets tion, Murphy Cases: in the Baas and Central (Thornton For R. Co., applicable appellate Luria-Dumes 199 Mich 134) Co-Venture, and reaffirmrtion rule, see Meyers (Meyers thereof 162). in Thornton Michigan Reports. Murphy Case Baas Case (Opinion Appeal (Opinion of Court, J.) per Board) Care, plain- “In the case bar “Plaintiff at time at the time tiff, ceived the she re- transporting injury injury, was was papers perform- engaged and not hooks, test plans ing any specific duty formulated in school. defendant, school for use The test at defendant’s papers request. were nec- direction or It essary grade the stu- was not on her incumbent plans go directly were dents. The to her to rooming place necessary for work of the if had she day coming go the week. occasion elsewhere. She was not charged desire to plan actually ITer hook managed duty to reach the with the transporting school ‘nice and was for of or safe- guarding property the assistant teacher of the step employer. had to If in.’ It be should school sent noted, had a messen- also, that the acci- ger get papers happened these dent on Mon- might day; have, there the examina- question plaintiff would no tions, for which prepare being ques- raised about his in wished to employ- begin tions, course not did until following ment. It is no different Aveek, showing here.” there no prepara- record that the questions tion of such on day

necessary.” (p 234.) regularly We are told fact Averetold in the —in proper Case 230—that the determination of these out-of-and-in-course-of cases “rests on particular facts circumstances disclosed Bearing conjunctively record.” that in mind, with “any our aforesaid rule, evidence” let us review what holding call is said to for a matter-of-law that Mrs. injury, engaged not, at the time of in car- rying employer. out mission for her Baas homework—done that weekend—was Mrs. Baas’ imminently proper necessary conduct of school teaching performance of her duties. When she proceeded the school, from home and toward started she only completed examina- her, the home- weekend, tion work done over but also day plan” prepared for that school which “lesson (regardless prepared) had to be of where it was ready morning tolled. also car- bell She when plan,” home-prepared ac- “master 2-week ried her duty. plan” day’s cording prescribed “lesson to ready for the “ditto machine” and distribution was to each regularly

pupil, and the work was class according plans. to such conducted ready, of done for use That such work was and hurriedly a fact teacher, summoned substitute is which stands out from this record. That Mrs. Baas helpful something and done—at “useful had to the home— employer” hardly gainsaid. [her] That can be employer practice precedent home knew —of preparation And such work—is conceded. indirectly, thereby, directly as well as Mrs. Baas n did employer’s something busi- her which furthered something than a fair conclusion ness, is more fairly, no evi- viewed there, this record. all this Is and in out of dence that Mrs. Baas’ arose n course n conclusion quoted her authorities ? See opinion. of this for taken home neces- work,

aIf schoolteacher’s sary ensuing preparation the next readiness for pronounced day, to is less beneficial school employer to taking teamster- is home than feeding, employer’s care team for day’s work (Punches, supra), for next rest supportive protest dixit want I such then manager taking a store home If the reasons. safekeeping ($332) employer’s over- cash of his morning night the store the next return Michigan Reports. (Clifton Kroger Grocery Baking Co., & 462), legally greater amounts service to the em ployer than what Mrs. Baas carried for afore day, said work and readiness for the next school suggest taking then I of cash safekeeping home and

overnight has become somehow more valu employer able doing indispensa to one’s than the bly requisite educational work at home. Further, Murphy supposed if overruling,, is to constitute an reject of Punches thought extent, then I such for want of when evidence intent to overrule Punches

Murphy (Punches was written was not even time). mentioned at the if it And is to be said that legislature “acquiesced” Murphy’s has rather garroting obvious of said section then I must legislature “acqui observe that has likewise years plus, application esced,” for 40 in Punches’ Finally, said supposed section 1. and if pres be at variance with Punches and all of the ently quoted espousals suggest then I thereof, Murphy should be overruled in favor of such earlier my enlightened and—in view—much more decisions way, of this Court. That, the we have done on previous several when occasions 1 section cases were notably Sheppard before us, inas v. Na Dyer Bank, tional 348 Mich 577, and v. Sears, Roe supra. buck frankly, why Co.,& I see no reason, differently, school teachers should be treated in the application of said section than 1, are teamsters, managers, store traveling automobile salesmen, and (see present quotations), provided salesmen of course the essential facts found their cases dis doing something helpful close that each “was to employer” going his while home from work and then returning to work. just

The line of cases mentioned written were into reports by our the so-called Court, between Fellows 1922 recognize and 1924. All were unanimous. All Baas v. quote I them succession as Punches Case. the follows : question beg the in the “We think defendants money carrying the home was a mere assertion trip employer plaintiff’s at which time his incident go free control over him but he was left had no pleased, he gone even to ‘have dined town

where down theater,’ then to the he done so n ‘fallen could with like the- theater stairs’ he down duty no the force claim he violated and ‘but for stairway.’ money he have taken another So would employment concerned, far as the duties of his are going home it can as well said that his towards performance the of his unfinished was an incident of daily Box Board Punches v. American duties. In injured party at the Co., 342, 216 Mich was returning and as same to work from his home time taking duty a a team his factory employer. Vide, horses back for his Beaudry (LRA Watkins, 1916F, 191Mich also, 445 Co., v. 576); Kunze Detroit Tree 192 Mich Shade (LRA 252).” Kroger Grocery & 1917A, Clifton Baking Co., 462, 468. principle of Punches “Similar recent case Co., There 342. Box Board Mich v. American employer part his his duties night bringing taking it home at team, cared for a discharge morning. in the It in the While back n such morning duty bringing team in the back injury. held that It was he a fatal received acting within when decedent was accident occurred Lipinski employment.” scope v. Sutton of his Co., Mich 651. Sales Co., Mich American Box Board “In Punches v. team care of the took the workman his home bringing employer. the team While used morning place he employer’s of business they

apparently ran horses and control of the lost away acci- It held that he was killed. employ- in the course of the of and dent arose out 371 Kroger Grocery Baking Co., & ment. In Clifton required employee the' Mich. money employer to take to his home collected safely keep it at home. He was- at the store injured a considerable the way carrying him while on his money. It amount of was held out of the accident of and course arose (p 464) employment, and it was there Justice said speaking for the Court: Steere, “ ‘Broadly may of and it defined, be taken as authorita- tively “out in settled that the course of his employment” an covers those accidents which befall duty discharging he is he is while some perform or directed to for the further- authorized ance, ness.’ directly indirectly, v. employer’s or of his busi- ” Derleth Roach & Mich Co., Seeber (36 472). ALR 258, 261, quotations prompt, roguish These but a fair- not a question. If case been this section Baas sub- mitted before the Fellows Court, would member of that Court have voted reverse? Conscious only answer, honest I submit present membership there remains but 1 issue; whether our shall accept guide early or shall not unanimous and never series

challenged decisions long standing yet Court, in each of which statutory standing phrase applied was construed and “dual-purpose” to a like in case, and each of which guidance the Court referred back for to the first (Punches aforesaid). of the series To conclude-. Here it cannot be as the said, Court say Murphy, plaintiff was able that the teacher engaged “was performing any specific duty for defendant, at request.”' defendant’s direction or can Nor said that charged she was “not with the duty transporting safeguarding property employer.” It can and should be said, Morse Pork Huron (quoted & D. Co., R. 251 Mich 309 235), testimonially that the disclosed fact. which taken home and done without of work proceeded as it should and not have school could Monday, having done proceed all been that such did plaintiff’s knowledge approval em- of with the ployer, fairly justified that the hoard’s determination duty” prescribed carrying plaintiff when out “a injured. she goes prevalent it on, time more

More and employees judicially that faithful noticeable becomes keep required, ever more in order to abreast of are regular pressing make home and second- work, to place performance ary ployer em- of such work. This having

having had due notice thereof, expected plaintiff only approved having but not would such seems to work, do at home essential years 40-odd that the rule which was written me by ago then industrial accident into the board, approval with declared of this record Punches Case play. brought present rule decisive The Court, 349): {Punches knowledge employer, full an with “Where part permits to do his circumstances, regular em- hours, or off the

work outside say ployer’s premises, heard to he not be should responsible work or for acci- not for the that he is may out of the work.” arise dents appellee. with costs to I would affirm, JJ., Kavanagh Black, concurred Souris, J. (dissenting). Opinion Supplemental J. Black, opinion foregoing was submitted for affirmance September 13th. on the Court to other members unwilling as then Justices O’Hara Since Smith, join gather Kelly in contribution Justice I

¡that to the measure of devotion full last (Murphy Board Education, Flint 314Mich Case separate 226), their for hold- have reasons submitted (cid:127) plaintiff ing that the school teacher is entitled compensation per the award below. opinion most for reversal invites what This recent though invitation, there be no is, is due even a rejoinder actually stopped one who has to famil- sup- iarize himself with the facts, the facts which posedly ensuing supplemental make the law. The opinion accordingly recording in is for turned precedent days books; for better our also better peninsulas of the this State fair and of unbe- compensation lievably tautological, Purposely erratic case law.' regularly controlling- it will return to award-reversing evidence the Brethren have not— by chirography judging to con- date —sifted and yet. sidered as having plucked First: Justices O’Hara and Smith,

a short sentence from the center of that discourse' approved adopted was which and in the Punches ” say ‘keyfinding.’ suggest “There the is I in Case4 stead that the continuant contexture of Punches leads (a “key finding” proceeds finding best to such which directly opposite my heading to the Brothers steer special juristic compass). their Recounted, then, for the convenience of those who must read and then esti legal mate anew the future of section is 1, Pimches' 349): pertinent (p unbroken and text employee “This is not case where an went out scope of the of his to do the work of' knowledge another, without the and consent of his employer. according The foreman, to own his testi- mony, responsibility seeing had assumed the permitted necessary team this received the care. He the to decedent drive the team because he was famil- permitted iar with and horses, him to attend to.' 216 Mich 342. Co., Punches American Box Board tending Driving and reason. same for the team paid for. He work decedent team was the taken purpose of home for to his the team bringing team caring feeding for it. "While and in caring morning, feeding for and after work injured. accidently he was it, opinion arose out that this accident “It our Authority employment. his the course of :and in n doa certain necessarily piece rest does not of work employer. express an "Where command knowledge employer, circumstances, full part permits to do his work outside employer’s premises, regular or off the hours, of his responsi- say that heard to he is he should not be ble may arise out foreman, for accidents for the work or n ofthe work. employer, through his taking practice of to the decedent’s (cid:127)consented caring caused feed it, team to his might cared home that the team be sent to his opinion, decedent there, our employer necessarily caring employ when taking from barn team, to and for the cases).” (citing paraphrase metaphrase Now I make bold the Punches Case. of of where Mrs.

This is not case Baas went out scope the her to do the work knowledge her without the and consent of .another, employer. principal according to school, testimony, responsibility her assumed the own had seeing teaching grade, that the the task of second properly hy according’ was and to Baas, Mrs. done superintendent permit- her direction. She and by nay approved, taking ted, Mrs. Baas home papers books which had to worked day, preparation for the next school also for just employer’s week as the team had to be ahead, n caredfor by not Jideon lest that team be Punches ready day’s job” for the next “on the work. Teach- to preparing teach the sec- second

ing grade, that next school that grade ond next day week, was the paid work Mrs. Baas was to do. She could school, not do the at without one, first done having at home. That ac- required preparatory work completed work, tually preparatory unlike the un- done work teacher Edna Murphy started to take (but home did get on there) day of her misfortune, had to be done home and had to be ready when were second-graders called to atten- tion the next school morning. Why? Because the was “ditto” grade taught by sheets the teacher had to master-prepare, ahead of time for day. such next And why did that master-preparation have to be done at the teacher’s home? Because no other place provided the doing thereof, and because its employer approved being done at the teacher’s home.

Not that it was necessary, the “in” establish of” “out character of Mrs. Baas’ that she trip, or transport attempt transport “ditto” those only sheets school. The separate “lesson plans,” also her at prepared home for the 2 weeks, next also to be to school gotten or by her; by “some- one sometime.” fact Such alone sufficient the essential provide “concurrent cause of the trip” Mrs. Baas started More of morning. later, Dependents as Marks’ Gray, 251 NY NE (167 181) comes to scrutiny and application.

I said —above—that the work taken home Mrs. Baas was required for imminently the next school Murphy. day; whereas such was not the fact of Now hear Justice writing 234: Carr, “She [Edna was not Murphy] with the charged duty transporting property safeguarding It employer. be noted, should also, the acci dent on happened Monday; the examinations, v. Christian Baas questions, prepare plaintiff until did wished for which following begin week, and there is no preparation showing that the such record of necessary.”5 day questions ivas on the of Mtirphy, for the case as not all dubious is This shall see anon. we contrary Murphy, there this case

To the undisputed “showing in the record” that preparation precedent master-dittos was grade, teaching necessary to the the second day. very school Thus Justice for all next Carr, judicial gaze they read what will not avert who Murphy, signa- has him with then written distinguished tory Case from Justices the one now before us. attempted squirming from lest there be

Now, undisputed testimony quite “key” read let us fact, dealing her Mrs. Baas’ duties and faithful icy up point thereof to the of collision that execution morning. principal wintry Miss De Boo, taught, where Mrs. Baas Zeeland school is testi- fying : you? returned to “Q. “A. A man books Were brought planning her briefcase and plan next 2 her book was weeks.

book, nice for the assistant teacher that That was so had step in. up it to her to draw Mulder testified was “Q. Mr. right? plans, is that those would come to me sometimes because I “A. She planned grade taught together. too, so sometimes we second was done home? “Q. work This home because she was done at “A. work This reading spelling book, and we would book empty get fill in what we and have to whole book every subject. every day That has do have Emphasis supplied present writer. anything to at least a week advance if be so should happen something, if or we sick the substitute step go story, teacher can and on with what Bible working spelling.” or what arithmetic we are on, or superintendent Now we listen to Mr. Mulder, system: the school part parcel professional prac- “Q. It is and part

tice of particularly do teachers to of their work at home, assigned your school; teachers is that correct? getting “A. Yes, and back to this reason— doing other idea of if in school—-teachers would they way. have have no if social life at all didn’t it that do

They might go game out ato basketball and game. itdo after the basketball Otherwise, she Maybe would be that is a tied to desk all of her time. why people queer. think teachers are They required transport would be “Q. in these papers right? briefcases, books; and is that say commonplace. “A. I would that would be prepare assignments you “Q. You couldn’t if did not have the ? books plans. “A. Lesson Anything transported “Q. else that had to be back and forth? Particularly in the case of “A. Baas, Mrs. she plans, prepare would have no so she would have to plans, all her and she would have to all do of her planning picture you when she was not in school. If can sitting pupils teacher at a desk where the doing planning— and were require physical “Q. This properties would some papers? —books Very definitely.” “A.

Finally, Mrs. Baas’ husband testified as follows: you knowing “Q. "Weare interested in from what regularly brought many work Irene how hours regularly assignment she worked on her work prior particularly did weekend what she injury. house routine at our we would Well, “A. immediately supper 6:30, or o’clock around

eat after supper I would do the dishes cleared the table. approximately 7 do her would and she homework— usually or o’clock, work until would or 7:30. She longer. possible merely there her homework. Were “Q. Describe papers, papers and books'? Mostly papers papers. “A. There were books. usually papers. correct This was first She would day. during project she had done Also she day. prepare the lesson for the class the next had to type paper a of would dittos—she had she She made plans morning and the lesson on next draw the first have a thing off ditto machine and she would run plan copy pupil. Her 2-week for each master plan usually every done weekend. She would was at ahead each weekend.” a week least majority my not advise Brethren do far, So ignore ignored why they this evi- have must —all —or they may any of it. But believe True, dence. stated if such reason should he reason, that is the given treatment. of rather than silent record, why All are to know entitled members Court apparently decisive value evidence inference and permanently majority-disdained are here. So is this family. disabled schoolteacher and peremptorily that sworn and administra- To rule tively facts disclose—as a matter of law—no> found statutory right to that which the administrator has ruling denied, awarded or and to make such without disregard deign no of reason of such facts, otiosity judicial than that kind of sooner which, less sluggards uncovered, if not is due to later make clangorous hopeful prefer all. I arousal, us provoke explanatory precedent of' that will some leg*al upon appeal as well as which the factual value say already vexed board, nothing profession, degree with some assurance. rely may naturally conclude, would uncritical upon One opinions current reversal, perusal task of this is that of presently assigned Court permissible inference — n any any finding evidence — a denial of compensation. which base the other around way where, happens task here, as the board has awarded compensation has out certiorari sued under employer long section 12 of of the act part (CL 1915, standing 1929, 8451, 1948, Ann, CL CL 413.12 § § [Stat § Rev, Ann 1950 Ann 1960 Rev 17.186]). Stat Stat § J., To the see writ fully sharpened point, Fellows, Meyers Michigan for the unanimous Court ing Co., 134; Central R. 199 Mich quotation Meyers with Thornton v. approval unreserving Co-Venture, If Luria-Dumes 162. not so, this were some Nestor of our bench great since—-have told us. long would — Mur quote Second: Justices O’Hara Smith us that “No phy (at 229) relevantly informing claim is made that the fact that she was carrying books referred to contributed in papers toway she suffered.” This us to brings reliance of an the Justices O’Hara and Smith taken from the other selected sentence landmarked and much misunderstood6 case of Marks’ Dependents Gray, v. 251 NY NE 90, (167 181). 93

The court Marks laid down a hitherto uni- con- versally accepted test. Justice Cardozo, having hand, sidered the testimonial record at concluded that death of Mr. Marks was non- by such test the killed on the compensable highway he was because “He was is, a that trip, while on purely personal Larson, See the “when in the Brown rightly v. Arapahoe understood Case, post and p applied” 647. quotation from v. promise making a it in of call Ms- fulfillment day, bring her of home at the end the and wife test¡ family with Now, car.” the Cardozo Michigan’s “twofold I consider mind, in constant perceive purpose” a we rule; which, rule as shall perfectly. quotation, by fits such test definitely personal the other one and factors, Two precisely doing just “something of useful and as the (the again employer” quote helpful is from to her “engaged Punches), Baas was establish Mrs. .”7 purpose” purpose That “twofold in a twofold personal-benefit trip from home, the to work and- work-produet bringing her of that to work with yes, at for the manufactured home been, which ensuing days, day job done, to be place regular of work. ditto sheets Indeed, plans which Mrs. Baas was done lesson pos transport endeavoring made it school, hurriedly teacher substitute for the summoned sible -writing for him quotation 3 pen is from of Justice Carr, This Dept., 350 Mich at. in Wheeler v. Conservation self and 595. others agreed 4 more Justices: other 3 There Justice Carr and the purpose” did that, private a promoting Wheeler also because “was right dependents compensation in that sec alter the tion of Wheeler’s Carr,(supported by present 1 ease. Justice Justices Dethmers wrote follows : Kelly) recognized fairly presented the rule “The situation comes within Baking Kroger Grocery Company, Mich 429. v. Anderson & compensation, employee, defendant’s as found the workmen’s There injured," commission, was, in which he was at the time of the accident testimony purpose. in a that his mis engaged indicated twofold only private purpose performance a but also involved not sion employment. is war scope of The conclusion an act within the us, now thus situation existed the case before ranted that a like appeal justifying the electrocution the conclusion of the board employment.. arose out the course Ms of Mr. Wheeler promoting! in the Anderson Case faet that he was the rule Under also private purpose did the situation. not alter §17.186])! (CL Ann 1950 Rev “The statute [Stat §413.12 findings compensation fact made commis provides that the acting scope (now appeal board), powers,, its within the sion 'shall, to result. being testimony, fraud, There in the absence be conclusive.’ thej change finding made, may appeal support Court not on Corporation, 338; 320 384. Hooks Shaw General Motors Mich ” Wayne County Commissioners, Road Mich n carry directly Mrs. Baas would have done on,

"to as way. accident on the but for her while Dependents My Marks’ from v. Brothers declare, Gray, here whether the concerns us that “What employment.” I are also risks risks of travel fully immediately appeal agree note and affirmatively similarly board, by pointing answered concerned, (see messenger to the test. “Someone” Larson) quotation bring ensuing had to the sheets plans to and and the school from lesson morning. transportation was due that thereof plans get partly sheets and did school, through partly through Baas’ effort and Mrs. probably having latter volunteer, effort of a police picked up, who from the been of the pavement, papers. officers Mrs. Baas’ strewed about books appeal pointed if the the out, board been As transporter second to the

school, and had been sent scene of accident traveling papers, get to each he the books would— trip way engaged been in the on the on —have if and, course of his disabled way, qualified compensation. Never- would have my judged say Mrs. Baas tois theless, —yes, Brothers, having as a matter of law—as outside been legal morning. ambit only Grotesque law? bred and Yes, inbred according Michigan; Roscoe the State which, in narrow “has attained bad eminence Pound, interpretation application of the workmen’s compensation (Por quotation source, act.” full 281.) Inc., Motors, Mack Reo see Dependents Gray Marks’ is advanced Since overruling appeal authority I would board, concededly scope rightful Larson, its examine compensation authority a national on workmen’s (1 244): Larson '647 misleading “It is inaccurate and call this test,! purpose’; sometimes has been the ‘dominant done, paraphrase by saying or to trip test, it that the is trip ‘primary’ purpose if business is business.' Judge was language. Cardozo used no such He it said sufficientif the business motive was a concurrent trip. cause of the He then defined ‘concurrent cause’

by saying that it meant a cause which would have making trip private occasioned the of the even if the mission had been canceled. One detail must be complete: stressed to make this rule it is not neces- sary, per- under this formula, on that, failure trip sonal motive, the business would have been taken particular employee particular this at this time. enough It is that someone would sometime have trip carry to take the out the business mission. Perhaps per- another it; have would done haps another time would have been if and if chosen; but trip ultimately would have had to made, employer got necessary item of travel ac- complished by combining employee’s it with this personal trip, say it is accurate to that it was a trip, concurrent cause of the rather an inci- than appendage afterthought.”8 (Italics by dental Larson.) enough “It

Yes, is that someone sometime would trip trip [the have had to take the Mrs. Baas started morning] carry out the business mission.” repeat I then, stress, due the lesson of the day, ready “dittoing,” transported had to be from Mrs. Baas’ home the school, and that “someone” get way had to it the rest when Baas’ Mrs. trip interrupted by “twofold” accident; her (cid:127)court.) Co., test: New Law, applied, 8 Recently, “The above 70 NM Mexico has never p observed, immediately in tlie test, yet strikingly ‘a as said (370 been formula P2d improved upon.’ like 816, 818, which, 1 Larson’s Workmen’s case after of Brown v. when quotation 819), ” rightly (Italics by Arapahoe supreme understood and' Compensation New Mexico Marks-Gray court of Drilling [Deo.

'648 seems to have her which, regrettably, pnt accident for the but of all kinds of rest gainful of her 500 weeks. life; just board, boresighting target

The made appeal saw this fact Larson, transportational Cardozo rightfully to the concurrent clearly applied pur- causes of Mrs. Baas’ trip. trip dually may account of its well posed and, just duality, on have to the immediate seconds of colli- brought sive on for accident and icy time danger or later for safety. rather than earlier morning, By test, Cardozo’s her work created an additional for travel” from home to school. “necessity in “The test brief is this: If the of em work ployee creates the necessity travel, for he in the is course of his employment, he at though is serving the same time some v. of purpose his own. Clawson Motor Car Co., (131

Pierce-Arrow 231 NY 273 NE Marks’ Dependents v. 94. 914).” Gray test

Cardozo’s has become the standard text 58 of Am Jur, Compensation, Workmen’s 241, pp § 745, “Effect of of Mingling Purposes Employer and Employee.” The text:

“The test for ordinarily employed determining liability such a if that, case is the work of the creates the necessity travel, he is in course he is though serving at the same time some purpose his own.” Third: Justices O’Hara and Smith conclude that “Her accidental arose out of injury automobile travel, not out of the work she was required do at home.” That flat declaration put is forth aas matter law. There is qualification. no Thus it must likewise a matter be, law, when vehicle, into a motor employee gets propelled then drives it out on public injury a sus- way, him of such during tained the course highway Baas v. Christian exclusively arises out of travel such motor no travel, employee’s matter the nature of the mission. reasoning spurns automobile-traveling-

Such my quoted opin Derleth, case of salesman’s first motorcycling employee’s ion. It too the snubs case Kingsley App (155 Donovan, Div 828 NYS 801), upon along which the Court in Derleth relied Punches other like section cases. It (here ignores sin) purpose” is the real the “twofold rule, a rule which is neither new nor novel. See beginning heading Purpose Larson,, under “Dual Trips” page (§ seq_.). et 18.10 The rule seems come have first—in unanimous and —to unequivocal approval (Clifton Case Clifton Kroger Grocery Baking 462) & Co., 217Mich at 465. Kroger Baking Grocery Later in Anderson v. & Co. (p 433): 429, Court said “The commission found that decedent two- purpose going fold breakfast and to the restaurant, one to have other to do business for his em- ployer, in accordance with the well-established cus- acquiesced employer; tom that the causes closely were concurrent and so related that it would impossible to conclude that either one was the primary reason his absence from the store. aspect merely theAs business was found not to be incidental, follows arose out of and employment, compensable. in the course of the and requisite present.” The causal connection in Anderson Note, Case, the the Court’s refusal upon Murphy apply stated to reason Case. the Is Murphy presently inapplicable not the for rea- same given inapplicability son as was thereof to An- derson¶ Murphy Here is Anderson’s eohibitor of 434): (p Murphy “Defendants cite v. Flint Board Educa- supra, Jodawelky, tion, Mich 421, Jeffries Transport,

Conklin v. Industrial Inc., 312 Mich Michigan support Eaggar Tanis, 295, in and their was outside ambit claim distinguish .employment. of those cases The facts In the Case the instant one. from them injury ant was on day, working while claim- occurred after way at time home. She was not employer.” any specific engaged for her mission say all and what rise here Now will someone n reversers saying; chary is, far are so “engaged in not at the time Mrs. Baas was Failing employer” specific that, ? for her mission deeper plunged into that “wilder not ever are we former Justice of doubt confusion” ness and Talbot Sheppard v. 1 case of wrote of section Smith Bank, 348 Mich 601? National Sheppard pages Case, all 58 was written it, The- handing down 1963-of Now-, 1957. with the similarly have we cast section case, divided again demi-law we know into that nebulous world of now that can answer better 'too well? All one personnel precedent surely ahead, must be as our .continues,inevitably change again. change look Fourth: Justices O’Hara Smith making, my opinion “erroneously” of Jideon first as driving work, he of the team as rode Punches’ “synonymous driving with the automobile here.” my Well, patent confessed, an error —stands error —if be proclaimed. driving are acts legally synonymous, if Mrs. as much as indeed district) (belonging the school had taken a horse home for feeding and care and then had hitched gig a or cutter for return horse to borrowed rented papers to Both of herself drivers were books school. they taking something to work day’s home; work, for the work done readied brought something employer needed have day’s regular drawn work. Whether engaged in “twofold horse or motor both were injury purpose,” and vehicular both ori —while way compensation injury entitled to the —became purpose. in the course out of suffered such dual by The clincher launched Justices O’Hara Fifth: required by is and Smith this: “Plaintiff was not employer by car.” It drive travel is not that unfair to retort neither was Jideon Punches required by employer his to ride—I “ride”— said by Barry’s wagon.9 quarter- in Mr. He should, hairsplit my ing make, Brothers have driven the way safety team each from of shanks’ mare.

Looking hairsplit, with care at such it should.be part duty stressed that was no of Jideon’s to take (distinguished wagon team) from the home; also that he would not have been hurt had he not been riding wagon away. the team when ran It employer-understood duty was Jideon’s to take the team it the next for care and there, shelter to return and. day. wagon, on the other hand, was taken home convenience, Jideon his own riding driving instead team afoot. ifSo, say we are to that Mrs. Baas’ arose exclusive- ly from as travel, automobile Justices O’Hara say dixi, do their naked then we should Smith forthrightly wholly that the Fellows Court missed legal jewel my Brothers have unearthed. right, If Justices are should not O’Hara Smith just flatly the Court—in Punches—have said injuries wagon fatal Jideon’s arose travel, out required and not out of work he was to do at home? And since there will no answer to this, the Wheeler cottage twofold and. like result compensable right Dethmers with the ents, 592, 593) Neither then the for extension there of the wire purpose” television mast carrying dependents. “was not it unfair Brethren should advise agreed with resultant is a out “a bit required by on to retort stronger, Wheeler, twofold chimney. right that Mr. Wheeler one would Mr. purpose” why employer” connecting Wheeler was compensation If, Mrs. Baas was not with as Justices think, to crawl under the his television set than was that of (Wheeler, morning. “engaged of his Care, depend Kelly, supra in a Her Beports. opin- professional our trisected reader not here do seated that some to conclude

ions entitled midges, mightily and more at more strain heave and find gnats, punkies, in effort to and no-see-ums10 defeating seems for what more more reasons compensation? just to be my enough, but that observation This should required to travel not that Brothers by Mrs. as well treatment, for humorous car calls further no find in record and briefs as Now I serious. proof traveled have claim that she could and no any way any all—ex- from home cepting anyone school — suggestion automobile. There is no jitneys, public cars, or or street buses early morning passenger train, were even conveniently running between either convenient or (a the apart). little 6 miles vicinities of and school over home thought airplane bit travel is a bicycle could a on ac- the count of that and she not ride absurd, icy highways extremely condition of the my day. But the inference of Brothers then, may livery a there been stable considered, have handy (it being wintry, snowy with cutters dangerously slippery) And, and horses for rent. yes, just walked, could have Punches she Jideon only being walked; the could have difference just she to cover, had times distance over ice through by by papers snow, books and carried her arm and lunch with thermos bottle carried only go, while other, a mile walk- Jideon ing through with the reins his hands the dew and September sunshine a salubrious morn. Too, rugged considering ancestry and the fame of Brinker, Mrs. Baas school, Hans could have skated to prepared towing her done work and lunch on a good lady sled, and thus the could have avoided (Matthew 23:24.) “Ye blind guides, which strain a gnat, and swallow camel.” a Baas v. possibly accepting (meanwhile other and more risks risks) dangerous travel” and that of “automobile stamp upon legal my nowdo callous her status. brand Brothers probably the risk” “assumed she Yes, morning of 1958, that winter of automobile travel realizing 1963to read this Court due liability concept another tort of master and servant sup- compensation concept which act; into the adoption posedly was 1 of the salient reasons century ago. remedial act a half this having Her accident conduele: occurred more To years ago, having than 5 and the issue not been sub- year here until Mrs. Baas lacks mitted vote only only deserving affirmance. The victor hospital, an insurer which is due save medical, just nursing part only a which, bills statutory period, initial 6-month totaled $5,614.66, plus tory compensation payable the sum of for the statu- presently

duration ordered rate of $40 per only totally week. The victim is the disabled together school-age dependent Mrs. 2 Baas, Today’s daughters. is, result without an- doubt, tragedy other of that chronic disease of courts and injustice tribunals. for the But ever brutal of de- layed justice, might “it have been” otherwise. It is. likely through that the seated here in Court ignored purpose” 1960would have the “twofold rule. duly by they Others will be warned what read family but Mrs. here, Baas and her will never for- get perceive what we do here. Schoolteachers will today’s at once that trisection will it. not—because long precedential in cannot—live of a annals better; know also, Court should as to the mean- time, that each of their class had best obtain, before- principal, hand from the a written order to take that preparation by work home for and return to school, specified in-the-order some means of travel. Such say probably “probably” an order over- —I —would objections compensa- deniers of habitual come the tion. again light

Having of that the case reviewed contributed Justices O’Hara which has been appeal I am the more convinced Smith, sensibly right. legally inAs board was as well as join appeal supra I board in Wheeler, 594, quoting as follows: former Justice Talbot Smith employment if “An out of the arises obligations or nature, conditions, arises out of the employment; in out of words, incidents of the the other aspects.” of its looked at My again. affirm vote to is cast regard it advisable (concurring). J. Smith O’Hara, I Justice in the result separately. short concurrence persuasive to write We address our Kelly opinion Mr. Jus- reached Mr. Justice tice to the agree. completely with which we cannot Black, controlling question to whether here Our associates both state the plaintiff’s injury We employment. of” her arose “out of and the course Kelly Murphy chiefly agree. depends Mr. on v. Flint Justice Education, support Mr. Justice Board reversal. Mich Co., Board particularly Punches American Box relies on Black support of affirmance. He footnotes Mich ignores Punches. We find no conflict the eases. n Punches, injured driving assigned a In teamster was while team employer’s place employment. His foreman from his home to his taking approved practice in the team knew of and had of his home key finding by to feed and tend them. The the industrial accident (p 349) board was : “Driving tending paid this team was the work decedent was for.” Murphy, injured walking In schoolteacher was while from school carrying questions She was and examination on to her home. which books evening. she intended to work that The decision recites 229) (p ’ : carrying is made that the fact that she was the books “No claim any way qiapers injury contributed the and referred to to she suffered.” traveling faet that both were to or from work is con- not Cardozo, quoted p trolling. at Justice delineates: us here is whether the risks of travel are “What concerns also employment. In view that the decisive test must be risks something employment or else that has sent whether it is the the brought exposure upon journey perils.” forth the or to its traveler * believe, erroneously driving we made Black, Mr. Justice has the synonymous driving in Punches with the automobile here. team * Dependents Gray, (167 Maries’ 251 NY NE 181).—Re- porter. v. issues. stranger the to ais bar, automobile Actually in case by ear. travel or to drive by employer required her not Plaintiff Her accidental home. employer to do work required She was she was work travel, out of out of automobile arose home. required do at to way arose injury in some showing accidental Absent some Kelly. Mr. Justice agree with to work, constrained we are out of that O’Hara, J. Smith, J., concurred Rehearing. Application for

On rehearing). is but 1 There (dissenting denial J. Black, from any 1 of the mysterious refusal of politely for the way account see, acknowledge, the record all award to of this reversers for purpose” rule.* It must be Michigan’s “twofold existence of the that Justices “just haven’t Dethmers, Smith, O’Hara Kelly, challenge, upon peremptory explain, precisely or time” to defend the their fold” to or discussion of “two reference joint omission of several Kroger Grocery Baking (Anderson v. Anderson like cases (Wheeler Department v. that, 429) Wheeler Company, Conservation, 326 Mich 590). My only is if this is the comment present dissent) (all opinions manifestly pat cited way eases long “sterilized,” operation much too will take supposed to be are for the tenure all seated here. The “twofold expectancy of Brethren Michigan, elsewhere, firmly is as purpose” rule rooted is compensation paid. long workmen’s survive as as rule will perceive that more and more self-blinded can fail but None risks, occasioned arising from more and more disablements crescent taking be readied for the morrow’s home of work that must appeal plague then rise task, board and our come before will denying compensation inexplicable of its decision result Court wholly deserving and disabled schoolteacher. to this having grant application voted to members of the Court Four rudimentary respect rehearing, it would for the view- seem something more than the points of others would call stubbornness Brethren standpattism. Or can it be that of reversal fear of they all reversers .can otherwise, write, plausibly some reason for reversal cannot agree upon ? rehear, rehearing by from denial of I and therefore dissent would membership. our equal division of * “dual-purpose” employed purpose” synonymous- and For are “Twofold copious ly by citation see 371 Mich 637-654. the authorities.

Case Details

Case Name: Baas v. Society for Christian Instruction

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 2, 1963

Citation: 124 N.W.2d 744

Docket Number: Calendar 24, Docket 49,949

Court Abbreviation: Mich.