Appeal from Wayne, Roland L. Olzark, J.
Leave to appeal denied, 396 Mich 841.
Danhof, P. J., and McGregor and N. J. Kaufman, JJ.
1. Workmen's Compensation -- Exclusive Remedy -- Circumstances.
Workmen's compensation is not an exclusive remedy where the conditions of liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act are not present, where a suit is not based on an employer-employee relationship, or where other than personal injuries are involved.
2. Workmen's Compensation -- Exclusive Remedy -- Courts -- Jurisdiction -- Employer-Employee Relationship.
The statutory grant of exclusive jurisdiction to the workmen's compensation commission does not deprive a court of the jurisdiction to determine rights arising out of an entirely different relationship and in an entirely different type of proceeding in which the employer-employee relationship is only incidentally involved.
3. Workmen's Compensation -- Statutes -- Exclusive Remedy Provision -- Employer-Employee Relationship -- Torts.
A plaintiff's action for damages suffered when a glove he was wearing at work, which was sold to him by defendant's president, became caught in a drill press, is barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act where the accident could not have happened had the plaintiff not been employed by the defendant as a drill press operator, the gloves were to be used by the plaintiff in his capacity as an employee, and it was while plaintiff was performing in this capacity that the accident occurred (MCLA 418.131; MSA 17.237).
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Mcgregor
Complaint by Robert H. Neal against Roura Iron Works, Inc. for damages for personal injuries suffered when a glove plaintiff was wearing at work became caught in a drill press. Defendant's motion for summary judgment denied. Defendant appeals by leave granted.
Plaintiff, Robert H. Neal, was employed by the defendant as a drill press operator in 1971. On March 11 of that year, while operating his press, plaintiff suffered a serious accident in which his right arm was completely severed. Following the accident, the defendant voluntarily paid workmen's compensation benefits which were accepted by plaintiff.
In 1974, plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant, seeking damages for the personal injuries he received in the accident. Plaintiff claims that the accident occurred when a glove he was wearing, sold to him by the president of the defendant corporation, became caught in the drill press. He alleges that a breach of warranty arose from the sale of the gloves inasmuch as the gloves were unfit for use during the operation of the drill press.
At trial, defendant requested a motion for summary judgment which was denied. After defendant changed counsel, he requested dismissal on the basis of an accelerated judgment. This motion was also denied. This appeal was then taken from the denial of the motion for accelerated judgment. However, we believe that defendant's motion for summary judgment was the proper one to test plaintiff's complaint under these circumstances. See Szydlowski v General Motors, 59 Mich App 180; 229 ...