Eckman v. Chicago, B.&Q.R. Co.

• Decision Date: 08 November 1897
• Citation: 48 N.E. 496,169 Ill. 312
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: ECKMAN v. CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

169 Ill. 312

48 N.E. 496

ECKMAN

v.CHICAGO, B. & Q. R. CO.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 8, 1897.

Appeal from appellate court, First district.

Action by Charles Eckman against the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. From a judgment of the appellate Court (64 Ill. App. 444) affirming a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Magruder, J., dissenting.

Otto Gresham and Charles Alling, Jr., for appellant.

Chester M. Dawes and Frank O. Lowden, for appellee.

This was an action on the case in the superior court of Cook county, by Charles H. Eckman, the appellant, against the Chicago Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, the appellee, for damages for injuries sustained while in the service of appellee at Buda, Ill. The declaration charged that the injury was caused by the negligence and recklessness of the defendant. A plea of the general issue was entered, and a trial had before a jury. The evidence showed that on August 29, 1891, while a freight train was standing on the main track, the appellant was directed by the foreman to crawl under the engine, and tighten up a valve, and while so under the engine another train ran into the rear end of the freight train, thereby forcing the engine forward, and dragging appellant quite a distance, breaking his leg and ankle, etc., whereby he was seriously injured. The railroad company relied upon the fact that the plaintiff was a member of the Burlington Voluntary Relief Department, and that he had received the benefits provided by that department, as a complete defense. The Burlington Relief Department was organized June 1, 1889, pursuant to a resolution of the board of directors of the appellee company, and its object is declared to be ‘the establishment and management of a fund, to be known as the ‘Relief Fund,’ for the payment of definite amounts to employés contributing thereto, who are to be known as ‘Members of the Relief Fund,’ when, under the regulations, they are entitled to such payment, by reason of accident or sickness, or, in the event of their death, to the relative or other beneficiaries designated by them.' This fund consists of voluntary contributions from the employés, income derived from investments and from interest paid by the company, and appropriations by the company, when necessary to make up deficiencies. The railroad company has general charge of the department, guaranties the fulfillment of its obligations, pays interest at 4 per cent. per annum on monthly balances in its hands, supplies all the necessary facilities for conducting the business of the department, and pays all its operating expenses. There is also an advisory committee, having general supervision of the department, which consists of the general manager of the appellee as chairman, six members selected by the employés of the differentdivisions of the railroad company, and six members selected by the board of directors of the company; the chairman having no voice except in case of a tie. The company agrees to pay any deficiency in the amount required to meet the claims on the fund. No employé is required to become a member of the relief fund, and any member may withdraw altogether at the end of any month. The members are divided into different classes, depending upon the amount of their contributions. Each member contributes monthly a specified sum according to the class to which he belongs, which is deducted from his wages, and placed to the credit of the relief fund. All employés of the company who pass a satisfactory medical examination are eligible for membership. If a contributing member is under disability,-that is, if he is unable to work,-whether such disability arises from an injury received while at work or from sickness, he is entitled to be paid from the fund a certain sum per day, varying according to the contribution which he is making. In case of his death, the beneficiary designated by him is entitled to be paid a specified sum as designated in the membership contract. The regulations also provide a form of application which was used by the appellant, in which the appellant agreed to be bound by the regulations of the relief department; that a certain specified portion of his wages shall be applied as a voluntary contribution for the purpose of securing the benefits provided; that this application, as approval by the superintendent of the relief department, shall make him a member of the relief fund, and constitute a contract between him and the company; that his leaving the employment of or discharge by the company shall terminate the contract, except as to benefits accrued and as to death benefits. It also appoints the beneficiaries in case of death, and contains the following agreement: ‘I also agree that, in consideration of the amounts paid and to be paid by said company for the maintenance of said relief department, and of the guaranty by said company of the payment of said benefits, the acceptance by me of benefits for injury shall operate as a release and satisfaction of all claims against said company and all other companies associated therewith in the administration of their relief departments, for damages arising from or growing out of said injury.’ The regulations provide further that, should a member or his legal representative bring suit against the company for damages on account of injury or death of such member, payment of benefits on account of the same shall not be made until such suit is discontinued; and that, if the suit shall proceed to judgment, or be compromised, all claims on the relief fund for benefits on account of such injury or death shall be thereby precluded. The relief department was organized on June 1, 1889. August 31, 1891, two days after the accident to the appellant, the appellee had paid for operating expenses alone of the relief department, $82,958.98. It had also advanced towards the payment of benefits during such time, on account of the insufficiency of contributions of members, the sum of $10,128.19. From June 1, 1889, to April 30, 1892 (this suit having been brought on May 4, 1892), the appellee paid for operating expenses of the relief department from its funds $110,538.63. On December 31, 1891, in accordance with its regulations, it crossed off charges against the relief fund for deficiencies which occurred up to that time, amounting to $20,275.55. It had advanced on account of further deficiencies occurring from January 1, 1892, to April 30, 1892, the sum of $19,441.27,-making a total paid and advanced by the company from June 1, 1889, to April 30, 1892, the sum of $150,255.45. The amount paid on account of sickness and death from sickness from June 1, 1889, to April 30, 1892, was $225,978, and the amount paid on account of accident and death from accident was $240,281.49. This latter amount includes accident benefits, whether the injury received was while the employé was on or off duty. In addition, the appellee railroad company had given office rent to the department, and also the services of the officials and clerks of the operating department in transacting the relief department business, for all of which no charge was made. The contributions of the members have never been applied to any other purpose than the payment of benefits. No part of it has ever been used for the payment of expenses. At the close of 1890 the membership of the relief department was 9,407; at the close of 1891 it was 10,336. At the close of 1892 it was 12,283. During those periods the number of men employed was somewhere between 25,000 and 30,000. The appellant, Eckman, made application for membership in the Burlington Voluntary Relief Department, July 18, 1890, which application was approved August 4, 1890. It provided that $2.10 should be deducted from his wages monthly for the purpose of securing the benefits provided for a member of the second class, with twice additional death benefit of the first class. These benefits, as shown by the book or regulations, were, for disability by reason of accident, $1 for each day of a period not to exceed 52 weeks, with 50 cents a day thereafter during the continuance of the disability. Any bills for surgical attendance were to paid by the relief department. The two additional death benefits of the first class were $250 each, which, with the $500 belonging to the second class, made the total death benefit $1,000 to which his beneficiary would have been entitled in case of death. The appellant received $245 for benefits, being the amount he was entitled to under the regulations. There was also paid on account of the appellant for nurses, medicine, and surgical attendance the sum of $121.90. The receipt of these amounts as benefits due him from the relief fund was not disputed. The appellant claims that he joined the relief department by coercion, and that when he received the first payment he was not conscious what he was doing, on account of being under the influence of opiates at the time, and that, therefore, he had not made a conscious election between the two alternatives offered him by the relief fund,-either to accept its benefits, or to abide the event of a suit for damages,-its rules precluding a member from doing both. The court instructed the jury to find for the defendant below, the appellee here. Appellant appealed to the appellate court for the First district, which court affirmed the judgment, from which judgment he has appealed to this court.

CARTER, J. (after stating the facts).

The real controversy in this case is not whether the injury to the appellant, complained of, was caused by the negligence of the appellee company, but whether the receipt by the appellant of the benefits provided by the company under its contract with the appellant through its relief department, mentioned in the record as the Burlington Voluntary Relief Department, after the happening of the injury, constituted a sufficient defense to the action. It was not disputed...