## Facts

- Two workers’ compensation matters were consolidated because they presented the same legal question under Michigan’s Workmen’s Compensation Act.
- Carl Whetro, employed as a caretaker-gardener at his employer’s residence, was injured when a Palm Sunday 1965 tornado destroyed the premises where he was working.
- Henry E. Emery, traveling on employer business, was killed when the same tornado destroyed the motel where he was required to stay during the trip.
- In each case, a hearing referee found the injury/death arose out of and in the course of employment and awarded compensation.
- The Workmen’s Compensation Appeal Board affirmed both awards; appellate proceedings followed and the Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and consolidated the appeals.
- Employers argued that a tornado is an “act of God” and, as a matter of law, cannot satisfy the statutory “arising out of” requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether injury or death caused by a tornado while the employee is at a location required by employment “arises out of” the employment for workers’ compensation purposes.
2. Whether Michigan workers’ compensation law requires proof of proximate causation or an employment-created increased risk when the harm results from a neutral natural force.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the compensation awards in both cases.
- The Court held that injury or death caused by an “act of God” may “arise out of” employment when employment places the worker at the time and place of the harm.
- The Court stated Michigan law no longer requires establishing a “proximately causal connection” between employment and injury to obtain compensation.

## Legal Principles

- For workers’ compensation, “arising out of” does not require tort-style proximate cause.
- A neutral risk (including a natural disaster) can satisfy “arising out of” when the conditions and obligations of employment placed the employee in the position where the injury occurred (positional-risk approach).
- A claimant need not prove the employment increased the likelihood of the natural hazard; it is sufficient that the job required presence at the location when the neutral force struck, provided the injury also occurred in the course of employment.

## Conclusion

Michigan treats injuries from neutral natural forces as compensable when employment explains the employee’s presence at the site of harm, rejecting a categorical “act of God” bar and abandoning proximate-cause and increased-risk requirements in favor of positional risk.


Whetro v. Awkerman, 383 Mich. 235, 174 N.W.2d 783 (Mich. 1970)