CLARK v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION.
Docket No. 100, Calendar No. 38,606
Supreme Court of Michigan
June 11, 1936
276 Mich. 24
Edward M. Sharpe, J., dissenting.
Optional gymnasium exercises in gymnasium provided by employer, while desirable, held, not to be a part of еmployment of member of factory police force so that a common mishap in indulgement is an injury arising out of and in course of employment.
Edward M. Sharpe, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Departmеnt of Labor and Industry. Submitted January 21, 1936. Decided June 11, 1936.
William Clark presented his claim against Chrysler Corporation for compensation for personal injuries alleged to have been sustаined while in defendant’s employ. Award to plaintiff. Defendant appeals. Reversed.
Lester L. Johnson, for plaintiff.
Kerr, Lacey & Scroggie, for defendant.
Edward M. Sharpe, J. (dissenting). Plaintiff, William Clark, suffered an accidental injury on May 16, 1934, while playing basketball in the gymnasium of the plant оf defendant corporation. He was a member of the factory police and his duties were to patrol the plant, look over equipment, see that there was no рilfering, and perform the ordinary duties of a patrolman. The members of this plant police force worked in three shifts. At the
“Mr. Keller, vice-president of the Chrysler Corporation, desires that all plants install and equip a gymnasium for all plant protection patrolmen, giving them the opportunity, on a voluntary basis, to develop and build up their bodies. It is my personal desire that each man at the Highland Park plant attend at least three classes рer week, both in calisthenics and jiu-jitsu. Also that all patrolmen pay close attention to Instructor Jones, that they may receive all benefits thereof, as eventually Instructor Jоnes will be transferred to the admin-
istrative payroll, where he will be in charge of all gymnasiums of the Chrysler Corporation in Detroit. For this reason, there must be one or two instructors pickеd from each relief, who will be able to carry on this work in the absence of Instructor Jones. The instructors who are selected must be passed upon by both Instructor Jones and their relief commanders. As this is the first gymnasium that has been installed by the Chrysler Corporation, we must set the pace, as all the other plants in Detroit will have their eyes upon us. It is my personal desirе that all three reliefs co-operate 100 per cent. to put this program over. Possibly in the near future other plants may call upon us for instructors. Should this take place, I would be very much disappointed if I did not have qualified men who I might transfer to these various plants.”
It is contended on the part of defendant that plaintiff did not sustain an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The department in granting plaintiff an award made a finding that at the time of the occurrence of the accident, plaintiff was in the employ of defendant company and that the injury suffered arose out of and during the course of his employment.
In this cause the record shows that the accident haрpened about 25 minutes after plaintiff was through work for the day and during that period of time when he usually took his gym exercises. However, it is not necessary that the accident take рlace during the regular or customary working hours to bring it within the scope of employment under the compensation act. Stockley v. School District No. 1 of Portage Twp., 231 Mich. 523. An injury may arise out of and in the course of employment even if the employee
The general rule to be followed in this class of cases may be found in Smith v. Seamless Rubber Co., 111 Conn. 365 (150 Atl. 110, 69 A. L. R. 856), and quoted in Mann v. Board of Education of City of Detroit, 266 Mich. 271:
“Where an employer merely permits an employee to perform a particular act, without direction or compulsion of any kind, the purpose and nature оf the act becomes of great, often controlling, significance in determining whether an injury suffered while performing it is compensable. If the act is one for the benefit of the employer or for the mutual benefit of both an injury arising out of it will usually be compensable; on the other hand, if the act being performed is for the exclusive benefit of the employee so that it is a personal privilege or is one which the employer permits the employee to undertake for the benefit of some other person or for some cause apart from his own interests, an injury arising out of it will not be compensable.”
In the Mann Case, supra, the plaintiff was a school principal in the city of Detroit and was given permission by his superior officеr to attend a meeting of school principals at the University of Michigan. On the way to the meeting he was killed in an automobile accident. In that case compensation wаs granted upon the theory that attendance at the
While in the case at bar there was no compulsion, except such as may be found in the letter coming from the vice-president of the defendant company, it is to be noted that the company furnished the room for the exercises, furnished a paid instructor and kept а record of those in attendance. Its vice-president stated that it was his personal desire to have 100 per cent. co-operation by having those who attend pay striсt attention to their instructor during the exercises as well as attend three classes each week. Moreover, there was an inducement held out to the men to the effect that in the near future they might be called upon to act as instructors in other plants.
In view of the fact that the privilege of taking these exercises and instructions was limited to the plant policemen and that the exercises and training, as such, would be of some benefit not only to the men themselves in making them physically more perfect, but would also be of a benеfit to the company in having men better able to perform the particular duties required of them as plant policemen, we feel that the case at bar comes within the rule of mutual benefit of both employer and employee and plaintiff is entitled to compensation.
The award of the department of labor and industry should be affirmed, with costs to plaintiff.
Wiest, J. The award goes beyond any instance to be found in the books and the reasoning of my Brother does not supply the want.
The opinion of my Brother wоuld result in ending the trend toward beneficial consideration of employees along like lines by employers. It stretches terms to hold that plaintiff’s injury arose out of and in the course оf his employment by defendant.
The employer provided a place for recreation of employees and left the method and means of enjoyment to the will of each individual. It may be true that the benefit derived by a user of the place not only tended to improve him physically but, as well, to create a more friendly relation between emрloyer and employee, but such physical betterment and emotional result, while desirable, do not attach to the contract of employment.
The award is vacated, with costs.
North, C. J., and Fead, Butzel, Bushnell, and Toy, JJ., concurred with Wiest, J. Potter, J., took no part in this decision.