Legal Opinion

Bellinger v. Hersey Gravel Co.

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided June 4, 1934No. Docket No. 43, Calendar No. 37,494PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Notwithstanding the sympathy aroused by plaintiff's condition and the regret that he is not protected by health insurance, we are constrained to hold that he is not entitled to compensation. He suffered from heat and sunstroke. This is not within the purview of the compensation act. We do not believe that unusual circumstances differentiate the case from Doyle v. City of Saginaw, 258 Mich. 467 . The employer was not responsible for nor even apprised of the fact that plaintiff only partook of a cup of coffee for breakfast and was obliged to go some distance to secure a conveyance to go to his…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Landress v. Phoenix Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
  2. La Veck v. Parke, Davis & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1916
  3. Roach v. Kelsey Wheel Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1918
  4. Doyle v. City of SaginawMichigan Supreme Court · 1932

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. American General Ins. Co. v. WebsterCourt of Appeals of Texas · 1938
  2. Bailey v. Henry Knapp & Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1938
  3. Ruona v. New York Life Ins.District Court, W.D. Michigan · 1946

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

Powered by the Exa API