Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.141 (2026)

Employee; action for personal injury or death, defenses abolished.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969

Act 317 of 1969

418.141 Employee; action for personal injury or death, defenses abolished.

Sec. 141.

In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by an employee in the course of his employment or for death resulting from personal injuries so sustained it shall not be a defense:

(a) That the employee was negligent, unless it shall appear that such negligence was wilful.

(b) That the injury was caused by the negligence of a fellow employee.

(c) That the employee had assumed the risks inherent in or incidental to, or arising out of his employment, or arising from the failure of the employer to provide and maintain safe premises and suitable appliances.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969

PopularName Notes:

Act 317

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1975–2002 · leading case: Hagerman v. Gencorp Auto., 579 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. 1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hagerman v. Gencorp Auto., 579 N.W.2d 347 (Mich. 1998). · cites it 4× “§ 418.141; M.S.A. § 17.237(141) and M.C.L.”

Mccaul v. Modern Tile & Carpet, Inc, 640 N.W.2d 589 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002). “The Smeester II Court further observed: [W]e hold: (1) negligence is an element of an employee’s cause of action against an employer under § 641(2); (2) an employer may not assert as a defense the negligence of the employee, unless that negligence is wilful, MCL 418.141; MSA…”

Smeester v. Pub-N-Grub, Inc., 500 N.W.2d 742 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 3× “Erickson v Leach, 285 Mich 554, 558 ; 281 NW 324 (1938); Lydman v De Haas, 185 Mich 128, 139 ; 151 NW 718 (1915); MCL 418.141; MSA 17.237(141). The trial court *407 erred in limiting both the damages and the defenses in such a manner that plaintiff’s action became an exact…”

Pelkey v. Elsea Realty & Inv. Co., 232 N.W.2d 154 (Mich. 1975). “MCLA 418.141; MSA 17.237(141). ^ 5 "Since this $1058 represents excess medical expenses recovered by appellee over and above the $400 for which appellants are liable under the statute then existing, KRS 342.”

Smeester v. Pub-N-Grub, Inc., 527 N.W.2d 5 (Mich. Ct. App. 1995). “The other directly applicable statutory provision is §141, MCL 418.141; MSA 17.237(141), which provides: In an action to recover damages for personal injury sustained by an employee in the course of his employment or for death resulting from personal injuries so sustained it…”

Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 235 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Accordingly, the trial judge was correct in holding that the "employee exclusion” clause of the Michigan Mutual automo *330 bile insurance policy applies to absolve Michigan Mutual from liability to American Mutual.”

Am. Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Mich. Mut. Liab. Co., 235 N.W.2d 769 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975). “Accordingly, the trial judge was correct in holding that the "employee exclusion" clause of the Michigan Mutual automobile *330 insurance policy applies to absolve Michigan Mutual from liability to American Mutual.”

Smeester v. Pub-N-Grub, Inc., 480 N.W.2d 329 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991). “MCL 418.141; MSA 17.237(141). The trial court erred in limiting both the damages and the defenses in such a manner that plaintiffs action became an exact duplicate of a workers’ compensation proceeding.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.