Whetro v. Awkerman
42 A.L.R. 3d 375, 174 N.W.2d 783, 383 Mich. 235 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An injury arises out of employment for workers' compensation purposes if the employment was the occasion of the injury, regardless of whether the employment was the proximate cause. An 'act of God' is not a valid defense to a claim for a work-connected injury.
Facts:
- Carl Whetro was employed as a caretaker-gardener.
- Henry E. Emery was a salesman on a business trip for his employer.
- On Palm Sunday in 1965, a series of tornadoes struck southern Michigan.
- While working, Whetro was inside a residence that was destroyed by a tornado, causing him injury.
- While staying in a motel for his business trip, Emery was killed when the motel was destroyed by a tornado.
Procedural Posture:
- In the Whetro case, the hearing referee awarded compensation, finding the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.
- The workmen's compensation appeal board affirmed the referee's award to Whetro.
- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the appeal board's decision in Whetro's case.
- In the Emery case, the hearing referee awarded death benefits to his widow.
- The workmen's compensation appeal board affirmed the referee's award in Emery's case.
- The defendant-employers in both cases appealed, and the Michigan Supreme Court consolidated the cases, granting leave to appeal in Emery's case before a decision by the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an injury to an employee caused by a neutral risk, such as a tornado, 'arise out of' the employment for the purpose of workers' compensation if the employment required the employee to be in the location where the injury occurred?
Opinions:
Majority - T. G. Kavanagh, J.
Yes. An injury arises out of employment if the employment is the occasion of the injury. The court's reasoning is that it is no longer necessary to establish a relationship of proximate causality between the employment and an injury to establish compensability. The 'act of God' defense, rooted in tort law concepts of fault, is inconsistent with the no-fault nature of workmen’s compensation, whose purpose is to provide benefits for work-connected injuries. By adopting the 'positional risk' doctrine, the court holds that if the work required the employee to be at the place of injury, the accident arose 'out of' the employment. This approach aligns Michigan law with modern trends and overrules prior precedent that required the employment to expose the worker to an increased risk from natural forces like lightning.
Dissenting - T. E. Brennan, C. J.
No. An injury from an act of God does not 'arise out of' employment because it is not a by-product of industrial or commercial activity. The phrase 'arising out of' is not redundant with 'in the course of' and requires a causal connection to the nature of the work itself, not merely being present at the work location. The purpose of workers' compensation is to address industrial injuries, not all human suffering. Events like tornadoes are not the moral responsibility of employers or consumers, and the cost of such random tragedies should not be incorporated into the price of goods and services.
Analysis:
This decision represents a significant doctrinal shift in Michigan's workers' compensation law, moving from the restrictive 'increased risk' test to the broader 'positional risk' doctrine for injuries caused by neutral risks like acts of God. It explicitly rejects the proximate cause requirement, making it substantially easier for claimants to recover for injuries from forces of nature or other random events that occur during employment. This ruling expands the scope of compensable injuries by focusing on the location and timing of the injury ('but for' the job, would the employee have been there?) rather than on a causal link between the nature of the work and the specific hazard.
