Whetro (P) was injured when a tornado destroyed the residence wherein he was working for his employer, and seeks reimbursement for his medical expenses. Emery (P) was killed when the motel in which he was staying while on a business trip for his employer was destroyed by the tornado, and his widow seeks compensation for his death. The hearing referee found that the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The award was affirmed by the appeal board in each case and by the Court of Appeals in the Whetro (P) case. Appellants (Ds), both employers, claimed that tornadoes are 'acts of God' or acts of nature and injuries that are caused by them do not arise 'out of' the employment and hence are not compensable under the workman's compensation act. Ds claimed that the phrase 'out of' the employment refers to a causal connection between the event that put in motion the forces which caused the injury and the work itself or the conditions under which it is required to be performed. They posited that employment as a caretaker-gardener or salesman does not include tornadoes as incidents or conditions of the work, and the path of injury is determined by the tornado, not the employment. Ds cited a series of Michigan decisions involving injury by lightning in which compensation was denied, and assert that a tornado is like lightning in that it acts capriciously, leaving its victims and the untouched side by side. Ds argued that the injury did not arise 'out of' the employment because the employment did not expose the workman to any increased risk or to a more hazardous situation than faced by others in the area. Ds lost the verdicts and appealed.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.