Vaivida v. City of Grand Rapids
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
I am not in accord with the opinion of Mr. Justice FEAD.
The workmen's compensation act (2 Comp. Laws 1929, § 8407 etseq.) has no common-law background and was originally bottomed on the idea that industry should assume liability as a part of the cost of production. It is true that the plan has been extended to encompass labor contracts in other fields, but, at first, and now, the relation must be one of contract and that of employer and employee.
Citizens needing public aid are in a sense wards of the municipality required to support them, and, if the able among them are set at work at common…
2Cited by39 opinions
- Erickson v. GOODELL OIL CO. INC.Michigan Supreme Court · 1970
- County of Los Angeles v. Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Supreme Court · 1981
- Hollowell v. North Carolina Department of Conservation & DevelopmentSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1934
- Markey v. S. S. Peter & Paul's ParishMichigan Supreme Court · 1937
- McBurney v. Indus. Accident Comm'nCalifornia Supreme Court · 1934
34 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.