Plaintiff, 73 years of age, worked '.for defendant as head sawyer for 8 days. His job consisted largely of pushing a lever back and for-th to operate a carriage on a saw'and of drawing logs by tractor from a yard to skids leading to the saw. Generally, some other employee placed the logs on the. skids so that they could roll down to the saw. On the last day of his employment, when no other employee was immediately available for that purpose, plaintiff undertook to slide or roll a log onto the skids. For that purpose he took a cant hook and attempted to raise the log from the ground with a steady pull, but it did not come, so then he gave it a jérk and there was more of a load than he had antici *234 pated and it “came up solid.” At that instant he felt as if a beebee shot had hit him in the back of the head. He continued working • the rest of the day. The next morning when he awoke it was discovered that he was partially paralyzed due to a stroke. According to medical testimony he had had a pre-existing bradycardia and arteriosclerosis and the strain involved in or resulting from plaintiff’s attempt to move the log with a cant hook could have aggravated that pre-existing physical condition to cause a stroke. The workmen’s compensation commission found that plaintiff had sustained an accidental injury in that connection and awarded compensation accordingly. Defendants appeal, contending that plaintiff did not suffer an accident.
Plaintiff says that a disability under part 2 of the act is compensable when due to a personal injury arising out of and in the course of employment, even though not caused by accidental means and, further, that if an accident be deemed prerequisite as an aggravation of a pre-existing physical condition, that requirement is met if the result suffered by plaintiff is unexpected, unusual or fortuitous even though the cause thereof was not. Such theories run counter to our holdings in
Hagopian
v.
City of Highland Park,
“It is not sufficient that there be an unusual and unanticipated result; the means must be accidental —involuntary and unintended. There must, too, be some proximate connection between accidental means and the injurious result.”
Was plaintiff’s pre-existing condition aggravated by an accident or fortuitous event arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant? Plaintiff says yes, contending that there were 2 fortuitous events of that character, namely (1) that plaintiff was doing what ordinarily had been done by some other employee when he attempted to move the log onto the skids; (2) that the log did not respond to plaintiff’s cant hook operation as he had expected. In this connection plaintiff cites 18 Michigan cases, typical of which are the following:
Grove
v.
Michigan Paper Co.,
Reversed, with costs to defendants.
