City of Chicago v. Indus. Comm'n

• Citation: 125 N.E. 705,291 Ill. 23
• Decision Date: 04 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 12766.,12766.
• Parties: CITY OF CHICAGO v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

291 Ill. 23

125 N.E. 705

CITY OF CHICAGO

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12766.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 17, 1919.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 4, 1920.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, Judge.

Proceeding by Gilbert H. and Bridget Coyne, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for compensation for death of their son, Gilbert F. Coyne, the employé, opposed by the City of Chicago, the employer. Compensation was awarded, the award reversed by the Industrial Commission, the decision of the commission reversed by the circuit court on certiorari, the commission making an award in accordance with the directions of the court, and the city brought certiorari, resulting in confirmation of award; the circuit court certifying the cause to the Supreme Court.

Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to enter an order in conformity with the opinion.

Samuel A. Ettelson, Corp. Counsel, and William H. Devenish, City Atty., both of Chicago (Robert H. Farrell and James J. O'Toole, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Finn & Miller, of Chicago, and Munson T. Case, of Los Angeles, Cal. (O. A. Arnston, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

Gilbert H. Coyne and Bridget Coyne made application under the Workmen's Compensation act to the Industrial Commission for compensation for the death of their son, Gilbert F. Coyne, a policeman of the city of Chicago. The arbitrator awarded compensation in the sum of $3,500, payable in weekly installments of $12 each. Upon a review of the award the Industrial Commission made a finding that the deceased was an officer of the city, and not an employé, and therefore not within the provisions of the Compensation Act, and reversed the decision of the arbitrator. The applicants sued out of the circuit court of Cook county a writ of certiorari to bring the record of the Industrial Commission to that court, and the court reversed the decision of the Industrial Commission, and remanded the application to the commission, with directions to enter an award in accordance with the finding of the court that the deceased was an employé and not an official of the city. The Industrial Commission made an award in accordance with the directions, and the city then sued out a writ of certiorari from the circuit court and upon a hearing the award was confirmed and judgment rendered for $3,500. The court certified that the cause was one proper to be reviewed by this court.

On October 4, 1916, Gilbert F. Coyne was, and for more than nine years had been, a regularly appointed and sworn police patrolman of the city of Chicago and on that date was assigned to duty as such policeman at the Atlas Garage because of a strike at that place. His assignment was from 4 o'clock until midnight, and, having been relieved by another policeman 15 minutes before 12 o'clock, he left the garage to ‘ring out’ and report at the station that he had been relieved. Five minutes later he was found dead at Superior and Fairbanks streets, two blocks from the garage, lying alongside a charged electric lamp post which had been bent over the sidewalk at an angle of 45 degrees by an automobile backing against it. His hands and feet were severely charred and burned, and it was evident that he had been killed by contact with the lamp post, which was an obstruction to the sidewalk, and which he probably had attempted to set up. The city was engaged in building, maintaining, and repairing bridges and other structures, constructive work, electrical work, operation of warehouses and other houses, tunnel building and mining, in which explosivematerial was used in dangerous quantities, and had never given notice of an election to accept or reject provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. The deceased had never given notice of an election to reject the provisions of the act.

Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, § 130) so far as it applies to this case, provides:

‘The term ‘employé,’ as used in this act, shall be construed to mean: First-Every person in the service of the state, county, city, town, township, incorporated village or school district, body politic or municipal corporations therein, under appointment, or contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, except any official of the state, or of any county, city, town, township, incorporated village, school district, body...