The timeline of events after Taylor finished his shift at 8:04 p.m. is murky. He was last seen at 8:49 p.m. fishing on the employer’s premises. It was not until 9:45 p.m. that police were dispatched to the property; it was shortly thereafter they learned Taylor drowned while swimming to get the wayward paddleboat. An investigation determined that he must have panicked after becoming tangled in lake weeds. 

Taylor’s estate brought a negligence suit against the employer. The employer filed a motion for summary disposition and argued, in part, that the estate’s suit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the WDCA. The trial court denied the employer’s motions, and the employer appealed the decision.

The Michigan Court of Appeals’ analysis of this case focused on three sections within the Michigan WDCA.

• The exclusive remedy provision of the Act, MCL 418.131(1), provides that workers’ compensation benefits are the sole remedy^[1] for a worker who is injured in the course of their employment. 
• The going to or coming from work provision of the Act, MCL 418.301(1), provides that a worker going to or coming from their work, while on the employer’s premises, and within a reasonable time before and after their working hours, is presumed to be in the course of their employment.
• The social or recreational activity provision of the Act, MCL 418.301(1), provides that a worker who sustains an injury that results from “an activity the major purpose of which is social or recreational” is not entitled to any workers’ compensation benefits. 

The Court determined that Taylor was in the course of his employment at the time of his death. In justifying its decision, the Court focused on the undisputed fact that Taylor jumped in the lake to secure a wayward paddleboat, which was part of his job duties and not a social or recreational activity. The Court also determined that Taylor had remained on the employer’s premises within a reasonable time after working hours when he died. The Court did not seem troubled by the fact that Taylor had been fishing – clearly a social or recreational activity – prior to his resumption of work activity. Nor was the court swayed by the fact that Taylor’s death occurred well after his normal workday.

Accordingly, the Court reversed the trial court decision and held that the exclusive remedy provision applied and barred Taylor’s estate’s negligence suit. Of course, the estate is still entitled to file a workers’ compensation claim based on Taylor’s death.

Conclusion

The Court's unpublished opinion in the Estate of Allyn Taylor v Outdoor Adventures of Davison, LLC case reflects how the three-judge panel views the interaction between the exclusive remedy provision, the going to and coming from work provision, and the social/recreational activity provision. The Court’s analysis illustrates how the outcome of cases involving these provisions are incredibly fact intensive.

We anticipate the Court’s decision may be appealed. We will provide updates accordingly. If you have any questions about this case or about how to apply the law to a similar situation, please let us know. We are here to help!

Alicia Birach...248.785.4172...abirach@fosterswift.com
Brian Goodenough...517.371.8147 (Practice Group Leader)...bgoodenough@fosterswift.com