Benjamin H. Sanborn Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 18 January 1950
• Docket Number: No. 31204,31204
• Citation: 89 N.E.2d 804,405 Ill. 50
• Parties: BENJAMIN H. SANBORN CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 804

89 N.E.2d 804

405 Ill. 50

BENJAMIN H. SANBORN CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 31204.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Jan. 18, 1950.

Peter M. Kelliher, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Klohr & Merrick, of Chicago (Hubert C. Merrick, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

WILSON, Justice.

Christine M. McGrane filed an application for adjustment of claim against Benjamin H. Sanborn Company, alleging that she suffered an injury to her left arm as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of her employment on January 3, 1948. An arbitrator decided that the applicant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of her employment resulting in thirty-five per cent permanent loss of use of the left arm, and awarded compensation benefits, together with an amount for medical expenses. The Industrial Commission affirmed the award. Thereafter, the superior court of Cook County adjudged that the decision of the commission was contrary to law and, accordingly, set aside and reversed its decision. We have allowed the petition for writ of error of the employee, Christine M. McGrane.

The facts are not in dispute. Christine M. McGrane, thirty-eight years of age, was employed by Benjamin H. Sanborn Company, in Chicago, as secretary to its president, Philip Page Young, and, in this capacity, was head of the correspondence depart ment. She worked five days each week, Monday through Friday. According to the claimant, on Friday afternoon, January 2, 1948, Young asked her to work on Saturday, January 3, for the reason that he was leaving the city on the following Monday and had considerable correspondence and mail requiring attention before his departure. When she agreed, Young asked her to obtain from the bookkeeper a certified check for one thousand dollars to purchase stamps to replenish a relatively new postage meter machine which was law and had to be refilled, and directed her to take the check home since the bookkeeper would not bepresent present at the place of business on Saturday. Young told her that William Blask, the head of the shipping department, would call for her at her home on Saturday morning to take her to the post office. Young asked Blask to call for Miss McGrane, take her to the office, pick up the postage machine which was rather heavy, or, according to Young, 'too heavy for anyone to carry,' bring it down to the automobile, and then take claimant and the machine in his car to the post office to have the machine replenished and deposit the check for the amount of the postage at the same time. Blask, who lived near claimant, as a matter of convenience to her in arriving at her place of work, customarily had been driving her to and from her place of employment for a period of three years. Claimant carried the check home, as requested. The stamps were to be obtained at a branch post office, located at State and Twenty-second streets, and claimant was responsible for turning over the check to the proper postal authorities for having the money registered in the machine. Although, previously, claimant had taken checks home which were to be delivered to the post office for a machine deposit, and for advance deposits on bulk mailing, this was the first time during the twenty-two years of her employment she had been instructed to take a certified check home for the express purpose of delivering it to the postal authorities when Blask took the machine to the post office. On the morning of January 3, Blask called for claimant at her home about 7:25 and, while en route to the office to obtain the machine, his automobile skidded on an icy street, went in to a spin, and hit the curbing and a lampost. Claimant sustained an injury to her left arm as the result of this accident. The extent of her injury and the medical expenses incurred incident thereto are not in controversy. Upon cross-examination, claimant added that she was not going inside to the office on the morning of January 3. Upon re-cross-examination, she testified Young told her that he wanted to give her some dictation on Saturday morning because he was leaving the city.

The testimony of Young, called as an arbitrator's witness, corroborates the testimony of the applicant with respect to essential facts. In particular, he stated that one of claimant's duties was to purchase stamps to replenish the postage meter, it being understood she would deposit the check and pay for the postage because there were forms to be filled out at the post office which she had authority to sign but which Blask was not authorized to sign.

Claimant contends that her accidental injury arose in the course of and out of her employment and that the Industrial Commission's decision in her favor was not manifestly contrary to the weight of the evidence. The employer maintains that Christine McGrane was on her way to work when injured and that the relationship of employer and employee had not actually commenced. The precise question thus presented is whether the accidental injury was incidental to the performance of the contract of service and whether the origin or cause of the accident belongs to, and was connected with, the contract of service.

The general rule is firmly established that injuries sustained by an employee while going to, or returning from, the employer's place of business do not arise out of or in the course of the employment so as to entitle him to compensation. Board of Education v. Industrial Com., 392 Ill. 261, 64 N.E.2d 374, General Steel Castings Corp. v. Industrial Com., 388 Ill. 66, 57 N.E.2d 454; Public Service Co. v. Industrial Com., 370 Ill. 334, 18 N.E.2d 914; Shegart v. Industrial Com., 336 Ill. 223, 168 N.E. 288; Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 11, 120 N.E. 457. Circumstances may, of course, exist under which an employee, in going to or returning from the place of his employment, is performing an act, incidentally, or otherwise, for the employer under his contract of employment. Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 11, 120 N.E. 457. An accidental injury may be compensable even if received at some distance from the employer's place of business, where it is shown that, at the time and place of the injury, the employee was doing some work connected with, or incidental to, his employment. Scholl v. Industrial Com., 366 Ill. 588, 10 N.E.2d 360, 112 A.L.R. 1254. Stated somewhat differently, as a general rule, employment does not begin until the employee reaches the place where he is to...