Baum v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 18 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12543.,12543.
• Citation: 123 N.E. 625,288 Ill. 516
• Parties: BAUM v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

288 Ill. 516

123 N.E. 625

BAUM

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12543.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 18, 1919.

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

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Constance Tomczyk to recover compensation for the death of Edward Tomczyk, opposed by Simon M. Baum, employer. The award of the Industrial Commission was affirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error. Reversed and remanded, with directions.

John Clark Baker, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Joseph L. Lisack, of Chicago (John H. McAuliffe, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

This writ of error is brought to review a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county confirming an award by the Industrial Commission against Simon M. Baum, plaintiff in error, of compensation for the death of Edward Tomczyk, who died February 25, 1917, from injuries received February 16, 1917, in a difficulty caused by some strikers raiding the factory where deceased was working. The questions raised are whether the death of Edward Tomczyk arose out of his employment, whether there was error in the admission of certain evidence, and whether the circuit court, in confirming the award of the Industrial Commission, erred in entering a money judgment and ordering execution.

Deceased was employed by plaintiff in error, doing business as the Nora Shirt-Waist Company, as an assistant cutter in his factory located at Milwaukee avenue and Oakley boulevard, in the city of Chicago. The workroom of this factory is triangular in shape, there being about 5,000 square feet of floor space in the room. The entrance to this workroom is from Milwaukee avenue through an outer door, down a passageway, and through a second door. At the right of the passageway between the avenue and the workroom was Baum's office. At the time of the difficulty there were employed in the workroom 2 men and about 25 women. Plaintiff in error manufactured wash dresses, shirt waists and other like wash garments. As assistant cutterit was the duty of deceased to lay out goods and cut same with a knife or a power-driven machine. It appears that on January 13, 1917, plaintiff in error received a letter from the International Garment Workers' Union, demanding that he sign up with the union to avoid a strike and other difficulty. On February 14 a strike was called by this union, which strike was more or less general throughout the city of Chicago. None of the employés of plaintiff in error were members of this union, and there was no strike at this factory, and no trouble existed between employer and employés. Two days later, at about 11:45 a. m., 20 or 30 striking members of this union, men and women, rushed through the passageway, past the office, and into this workroom, calling upon the employés of plaintiff in error to strike. Plaintiff in error was in his office at the time, and when he saw the crowd rushing into his factory he ran to the rear of his office and tried to prevent the crowd from entering his workroom. He seized a hammer, which was taken away from him by the strikers. He then tried to reach his telephone to call the police, but was prevented by the strikers. As the crowd forced its way past plaintiff in error. Tomczyk walked around from his cutting table, where he was working, and tried to hold them back. The plaintiff in error was standing about 4 feet away from Tomczyk, and there were about 6 male strikers standing between them. The remaining strikers, men and women, were crowded around plaintiff in error, Tomczyk, and the forelady, all the women employés of the factory having fled in a panic. In the course of the riot Tomczyk was stabbed, and cried out, ‘Baum! I am cut!’ It was from this wound that he died. The strikers left immediately, throwing bricks through the plate glass windows as they went.

The first question is whether Tomczyk's injury, which was received in the course of his employment, arose out of his employment. The words ‘arising out of’ have reference to the cause or origin of the accident, and seem to indicate that the accident must happen out of the transaction of the business in which the workman is engaged. That would include any accident which might naturally result from the manner in which the business is carried on and which would be considered incidental to the employment itself. This injury was clearly a mishap, occurring outside of the usual course of events, and was an emergency which arose while Tomczyk was engaged in his work. It is well argued that such a situation could hardly have been contemplated by either the employer or the employé when Tomczyk entered the employment of plaintiff in error. On the other hand, when plaintiff in error failed to sign the agreement with the union, it was certain to cause the members of the union to use some measure to compel compliance with their demands. It was generally known that there was a strike in the city of Chicago, and this fact was known to the plaintiff in error. Unfortunately, during the course of a strike, and in the excitement of events which occur during a strike, trouble quite frequently arises. In view of the general conditions and events that were happening in the immediate vicinity of the factory of plaintiff in error, it can hardly be said he should not, as a reasonable person, expect some difficulty with the strikers.

While there must be some causal relation between the employment and the injury, it is not necessary that the injury be one which ought to have been foreseen or expected. It must, however, be one which, after the event, may be seen to have had its origin in the nature of the employment. Such was our holding in ...