Armour & Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: Armour & Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois, 273 Ill. 590, 113 N.E. 138 (Ill. 1916)
• Decision Date: 22 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10719.,10719.
• Parties: ARMOUR & CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

273 Ill. 590

113 N.E. 138

ARMOUR & CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 10719.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1916.

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

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Alice I. Fitzgerald, to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, Walter A. Fitzgerald, opposed by Armour & Co., the employer. Compensation was awarded, the award of the Industrial Board affirmed by the circuit court, and to review the judgment of the circuit court the employer brings error. Judgment affirmed.Alfred R. Urion, Charles J. Faulkner, Jr., and Walter C. Kirk, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Charles W. Lamborn and Edward McTiernan, both of Chicago, for defendants in error.

DUNN, J.

This writ of error was sued out to review the judgment of the circuit court of Cook county, which confirmed the finding and award of the Industrial Board of Illinois on the claim of Alice I. Fitzgerald, administratrix of the estate of Walter A. Fitzgerald, against the plaintiff in error, allowing her the sum of $3,500 in weekly installments on account of the death of the decedent, who was her husband.

Walter A. Fitzgerald was employed by Armour & Co. as a teamster from December, 1912, until March, 1914. About 7 o'clock in the morning of March 13, 1914, he started in apparent good health, with his team, from the plant of plaintiff in error at the Union Stockyards, in Chicago, with a load for delivery downtown, and with orders to bring back a load from the freight house of the Wabash Railroad Company. He returned to the plant with the load of freight about half past 5, complaining to his foreman that he was suffering, and the latter sent him in a buggy, with another employé, to the office of the physician of the plaintiff in error, who made a superficial examination. Fitzgerald was then suffering from pain in his back and flinched upon the application of pressure to the lumber region. From the physician's office he was taken to his home in the buggy. He ate no supper, but went immediately to bed. He was sick at his stomach, had severe running of the bowels, was in pain all night, and the next morning was spitting blood. His wife examined his body that morning and found two bruises-one at the right shoulder blade and the other on the right side of the back, near the lower part of the spine. Both were black and yellow. He received no treatment, except that his wife rubbed his back with arnica, until the next day, which was Sunday, when a physician came, who found him suffering great pain in the right side of his chest, and on examination found two or three bruises-one on his back and another on the right shoulder blade. They were abrasions, and were red, but with no discoloration. There was another bruise near the spine on the right side-a contusion which came from external means, which might have been a blow, a fall, or other external violence. The deceased was in severe pain from breathing. The doctor treated him for a fracture of the rib, and strapped the rib with adhesive straps, although afterward he found it was not broken. The doctor continued to visit him until his death, which occurred on Friday, March 20th. On Tuesday he developed pneumonia. The doctor testified that the cause of his death was traumatic pneumonia, brought on by an external injury to the lung. After the deceased left the stock yards on Friday, March 13th, he delivered his load and ate his lunch at about 1:30 o'clock with John Shugrue, another teamster, who testified that he ate a good, hearty dinner and his physical condition then seemed all right. After his lunch Fitzgerald went to the Wabash freight house, where he loaded his wagon with 31 cases of pork and beans in boxes weighing about 90 or 100 pounds, and 48 10-pound boxes. He was there about 30 minutes, and then left, and the next seen of him, so far as the record shows, was when he arrived at the stockyards in the evening.

The burden rested upon the administratrix of showing that the decedent's death was caused by an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, and the plaintiff in error insists that there was no competent evidence showing such accident, and death as the result of it. There is no dispute as to the facts shown. They were stipulated...