Legal Opinion

Schultz v. Chevrolet Motor Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided January 4, 1932No. Docket No. 230, Calendar No. 36,069PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWiest, J.

Plaintiff and another employee of defendant company were engaged in unloading “pedal bundles” from a truck. Plaintiff tossed a bundle and it struck his fellow employee. The fellow employee was angered thereby, seized a stake, and struck plaintiff, fracturing his skull. Defendant reported the accident but disclaimed that it arose out of the employment. This is an appeal by defendant from an award of compensation to plaintiff, and presents the question of whether the accident arose out of the employment. It is conceded that the accident arose in the course of the employment.

Defendant cites…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Pekin Cooperage Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1918
  2. Claim of Verschleiser v. Joseph Stern & SonNew York Court of Appeals · 1920
  3. Jacquemin v. Turner & Seymour Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1918
  4. Stasmos v. State Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1921
  5. Marshall v. Baker-Vawter Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1919

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Beauchamp v. Dow Chemical Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Tegels v. Kaiser-Frazer Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1950
  3. Mutual Implement & Hardware Ins. v. PittmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1952
  4. Myszkowski v. Wilson & Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1952
  5. York v. City of HazardCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1945

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API