TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walker v. Ridley Cleaners, Inc.

Walker v. Ridley Cleaners, Inc., 18 N.W.2d 256 (Mich. 1945)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Michigan Supreme Court · State Highest Courts
Decided
April 9, 1945
Docket
Nos. 33, Calendar No. 42,742.
Judges
Wiest, Starr, North, Btjtzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, Eeid
Citations
18 N.W.2d 256311 Mich. 4

Opinion of the Court — Wiest

Wiest, J.

In November, 1942, defendant Ridley Cleaners, Inc., employed plaintiff, a 16-year-old boy, *5 to work in its rug cleaning department, upon his written representation that he was 18 years of age. In the course of such employment the boy, while engaged in putting a 9 by 12 rug through an electric wringer, reached out his hand- to pull a wrinkle out of the rug, slipped' and the rolls of the machine caught his hands, resulting in loss of his right forearm and use of his left arm. Defendant Eidley Cleaners, Inc., were operating under the workmen’s compensation law, with defendant Consolidated Underwriters as liability insurance carrier. Upon application, the department of labor and industry awarded plaintiff1 double compensation from which award this appeal was taken.

Eight to single compensation is conceded and the question turns upon whether, under the circumstances here involved, the right to double compensation was warranted. The answer to the question is found in our holding to the contrary in Boshaw v. J. J. Newberry Co., 259 Mich. 333 (83 A. L. R. 412). The employer must act in good faith and under circumstances reasonably showing entrapment of hiring by .the applicant’s prevarication as to age and not negatived by his apparent age. See Blanton v. Clay Products Co., 310 Mich. 635 . The department was in error in awarding double compensation. We find no occasion to discuss other alleged errors.

The award is set aside and the case remanded to the department of labor and industry to enter an award of single compensation, Defendants will recover costs.

Starr, C. J., and North, Btjtzel, Bushnell, Sharpe, Boyles, and Eeid, JJ., concurred.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1962: 11965: 11966: 119622026peak 1962 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Halfacre v. Paragon Bridge & Steel Co.118 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1962)
  2. Mosier v. Carney138 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. 1965)
  3. Autio v. Proksch Construction Co.141 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. 1966)

Most recent

  1. Autio v. Proksch Construction Co.141 N.W.2d 81 (Mich. 1966)
  2. Mosier v. Carney138 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. 1965)
  3. Halfacre v. Paragon Bridge & Steel Co.118 N.W.2d 455 (Mich. 1962)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Boshaw v. J. J. Newberry Co., 243 N.W. 46 (Mich. 1932) 12
Blanton v. Clay Prods. Co., 17 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. 1945) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list