Brink v. J. W. Wells Lumber Co.
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtClark, C. J.
(after stating the facts). The period of going to and returning from work, while not upon the employer’s premises, generally is not covered by the act. Lipinski v. Sutton Sales Co., 220 Mich. 647; Reed v. Bliss & Van Auken Lumber Co., 225 Mich. 164.
Plaintiff was on the premises of the employer, going from his work, leaving within a reasonable time, following a customary and permitted route off the premises, and in the immediate vicinity of his labor. It is a general rule that an employee, under such circumstances, is still in the course of his employment. Papinaw v. Railway Co., 189 Mich.…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Hills v. BlairMichigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Rayner v. Sligh Furniture Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1914
- Adams v. Iron Cliffs Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1889
- Novack v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1924
- Wabash Railway Co. v. Industrial CommissionIllinois Supreme Court · 1920
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by25 opinions
- Whetro v. AwkermanMichigan Supreme Court · 1970
- Dyer v. Sears, Roebuck & CompanyMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
- Simkins v. General Motors Corp.Michigan Supreme Court · 1996
- Howard v. City of DetroitMichigan Supreme Court · 1966
- Freiborg v. Chrysler CorporationMichigan Supreme Court · 1957
20 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.