(dissenting). This case is before us for decision on the bases of undisputed proofs and applicable provisions of the workmen’s compensation law.* For some time prior to the injury for which he seeks compensation plaintiff was employed by defendant at its so-called Mack street plant in the city of Detroit. For the accommodation of employees desiring to use it defendant permitted parking on land that it owned, situated several hundred feet from the premises where plaintiff worked. Plaintiff testified on the hearing before the referee of the workmen’s compensation commission that he customarily went from the lot to the plant by following-railroad tracks for some distance and then crossing a public street, stating further that it was approximately a 5-minute walk.
On the 22d of June, 1955, plaintiff, who began his work at 6:30 a.m., enteréd the parking lot at approximately 5:45. After parking his car and leaving the vehicle he was struck by the automobile of another Chrysler employee and was injured. This proceeding was instituted under the statute for the purpose of obtaining- compensation for such injury. *113After listening to the testimony the referee denied the claim on the ground that there was no evidence to support a finding that the accident and injury arose out of plaintiff’s employment. The compensation appeal board reversed the referee and ordered compensation paid to plaintiff at the rate of $34 per week from June 22, 1955, to September 13th following, and, also, directed reimbursement for medical and hospital expenses. On leave granted, defendant has appealed to this Court from such award.
The basic question at issue is whether the undisputed facts fairly bring the case within the scope of the workmen’s compensation act. More specifically, may it be said that the accident in which plaintiff was injured arose “out of and in the course of his employment”? So far as this record discloses, the parking lot in question was maintained by defendant solely as an accommodation for employees at the Mack plant who wished to use it. There was no obligation on their part that they should do so. Inferentially the privilege allowed might have been withdrawn at any time. When plaintiff parked his automobile on the lot on the occasion in question he was acting voluntarily and solely for his own benefit. Obviously he might have parked his car elsewhere or have traveled to his work by public conveyance or some other method of transportation. His employment did not include the use of his automobile or his parking it on defendant’s lot. On the record before us there is no proper basis to support a conclusion that the injury for which compensation is sought arose out of or in the course of plaintiff’s employment. In consequence, it is not within the purview of the statute as enacted by the legislature.
In writing for affirmance of the award Chief Justice Dethmers discusses at some length the amendment to part 2, § 1, of the compensation law by PA 1954, No 175. I am. not in accord with his apparent *114conclusion that said amendment affects, or controls, the determination of the case at bar. The primary rule' of statutory' interpretation requires the ascertaining of the legislative intent. Where the language used is clear and unambiguous it speaks for itself, and that is precisely the situation with which we are confronted here. The section in question, as amended, reads as follows:
“An employee, who receives a personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment by an employer who is at the time of such injury subject to the provisions of this act, shall be paid compensation in the manner and to the extent hereinafter provided, orín casé of his death resulting from such injuries such compensation shall be paid to his dependents as hereinafter defined. The term ‘time of injury’ or ‘date of injury’ as used in this act shall in the case of a disease or in the case of an injury not attributable to a single event be the last day of work in the employment in which the employee was last subjected to the conditions resulting in disability or death.
“Every employee going to or from his work while on the premises where his work is to be performed, and within a reasonable'time before and after his working hours, shall be presumed to be in the course of his employment.” "CLS 1956, § 412.1 (Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 17.151).
On behalf of plaintiff emphasis is placed on the concluding sentence of the section which was added by the amendment. It will be noted that in no case does the presumption apply unless the employee is “on the premises where his work is to be performed.” In this connection changes in the bill (1954 Senate Bill No 1150) during its consideration by the legislature are significant. As introduced the measure provided that “Every employee going to and from his employment while on the premises of his employer shall- be deemed to be performing a service *115arising ont of and in the course' of his employment.” Evidently it was considered by the lawmakers' that the reference to “premises of his employer” was too comprehensive and might lead to claims for compensation for injuries having no connection with the work of the employee. In consequence the language was changed so as to limit such premises to', those where the employee worked. As applied to the facts in this case the language finally adopted in the amendment, as enacted, would have reference to the Mack street plant, and not to the parking lot. At the time of his injury plaintiff was not on the premises where his work was to be performed.
The act of plaintiff in parking his car on the lot, pursuant to the privilege granted him by defendant, was not an incident of his work in such sense as to bring it within the purview of the statute. A contrary view suggests the conclusion that plaintiff’s transportation by whatever means he might select for that purpose would be likewise incidental to his employment and, hence, that any injury suffered by him in the course of such transportation, through the wrongful act of. another, or otherwise, would be compensable under the statute. Such result is clearly beyond the legislative intent as manifested in the compensation act.
Other changes in the bill made in the legislature before final enactment are also significant on the question of intent. It will be noted that as originally introduced the presumption was expressed to -apply not only to any premises of the employer but also to the requirement that the injury to be compensable must arise out of the employment as well as in the course thereof. This was changed by amendment in such manner as to refer to the course of employment only, and to limit the arising of the presumption to a reasonable time before and after working hours. ■
*116In considering the legislative intent in the enactment of the amendment it must he borne in mind that the basic requirements of the statute that an injury to be compensable must “arise out of” and also “in the course of” the employment were re-enacted without change. The provisions of the section quoted must be read together. It may not be assumed that the legislature intended to create a presumption that should control the right to compensation in any case in which the facts established by the proofs disclose that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment. Such an attempt would scarcely be consistent with constitutional guaranties requiring due process of law. The conclusion necessarily follows that the presumption as expressed by the legislature in the amendment is rebuttable when the facts, as in the case at bar, are such as to render it inapplicable.
It is generally recognized that a presumption may not be weighed against evidence. This Court in numerous prior decisions has declared that such is the established rule in this State. In Gillett v. Michigan United Traction Co., 205. Mich 410, 414, 415, it was said:
“It is now quite generally held by the courts that a rebuttable or prima facie presumption has no weight as evidence. It serves to establish a prima facie case, but if challenged by rebutting evidence, the presumption cannot be weighed against the evidence. Supporting evidence must be introduced, and it then becomes a question of weighing the actual evidence introduced, without giving any evidential force to the presumption itself. In 1 Eliiott on Evidence, § 91, p 114, it is said:
“ ‘It (the presumption) may be directly rebutted by such evidence, or it may be shown thereby that it was never applicable to the particular facts, for it will be 'found that presumptions are usually very general in their nature, and iose their force and ap*117plication when the specific facts of the ease are shown.’ ”
Among other decisions of like import are Baker v. Delano, 191 Mich 204; Noonan v. Volek, 246 Mich 377; Hanna v. McClave, 271 Mich 133; Patt v. Dilley, 273 Mich 601. In Christiansen v. Hilber, 282 Mich 403, the general rale recognized in Michigan was summarized as follows:
“Since presumptions of fact are liable to be contrary to the facts they are only introduced to supply the want of real facts and in many cases to determine which party shall take upon himself the burden of showing what are the facts but they never obtain against positive proof.” (Syllabus 1.)
“A rebuttable presumption has no weight as evidence but merely serves to establish a prima facie case so that, if challenged by rebutting evidence, supporting evidence must be introduced and it then becomes a question of weighing the actual evidence introduced.” (Syllabus 3.)
The right to compensation in any case of this kind necessarily depends on the facts and on the law. Here the facts, as before noted, are not in dispute. It is the duty of the Court to construe the statute as the legislature has enacted it. Clearly it was not, and is not, intended as a substitute for general accident or health insurance. It must be presumed that the legislature has indicated its intent in the language of the enactment. If its scope is to be extended such result may properly be accomplished by legislative action only. Our duty is to interpret and apply the law as we find it.
The decision of the referee in denying compensation to plaintiff was, under the proofs before him, correct, and should have been affirmed by the appeal board. Plaintiff’s accident and injury did not arise out of his employment or in the course thereof. The case should be remanded to the appeal- board of the *118workmen’s-compensation commission with directions to set aside the award entered.
Sharpe and Kelly, JJ., concurred with Carr, J.PA 1912 (1st Ex Sess), No 10, as amended (CL 1948 and CLS 1956, § 411.1 et seq. [Stat Ann 1950 Rev and Stat Ann 1955 Cum Supp § 17.141 et seg.]).