Chas. A. Smith & Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 October 1921
• Docket Number: No. 14009.,14009.
• Citation: 299 Ill. 377,132 N.E. 470
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHAS. A. SMITH & CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

299 Ill. 377

132 N.E. 470

CHAS. A. SMITH & CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 14009.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 22, 1921.

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

Proceedings under Workmen's Compensation Act by John Murowski for whom Frances Pawelezyk, as administratrix of his estate, was substituted, for compensation for injuries, opposed by Chas. A. Smith & Company, employer. Award for petitioner by arbitrator was confirmed by the Industrial Commission and by the circuit court, and employer brings error.

Reversed.

William E. Rafferty, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Royal W. Irwin and Ewart Harris, both of Chicago, for defendant in error.

STONE, C. J.

On December 2, 1915, John Murowski was injured while employed by plaintiff in error in unloading a car of lumber and he applied to the Industrial Commission for compensation. The arbitrator awarded compensation in the sum of six dollars per week for a period of eleven weeks for temporary total incapacity and a further sum of six dollars per week for a period of twenty weeks for the loss of one finger of his right hand. On appeal this award was confirmed by the Industrial Commission, and later by the circuit court of Cook county. Murowski having died, Frances Pawelezyk, the defendant in error, was appointed administratrix of his estate.

Murowski was a molder by trade and was not regularly employed by plaintiff in error, and its sole contention is that the work of Murowski was casual and not regular.

Section 5 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as it read when the injury occurred, is in part as follows: ‘The term ‘employee’ as used in this act shall be construed to mean * * * every person in the service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, * * * but not including any person whose employment is but casual or who is not engaged in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.' Hurd's Rev. St. 1915-16, c. 48, § 130.

The ordinary definition of the word ‘casual’ is, that which comes without regularity and is occasional, as distinguished from its antonyms, which are ‘regular,’ ‘systematic,’ ‘periodic’ and ‘certain.’ Where the employment for one job cannot be characterized as permanent or periodically regular but occurs by chance, or with the intention and understanding on the part of both employer and employee that it shall not be continuous, it is casual. Consumers' Oil Co. v. Industrial Com., 289 Ill. 423, 124 N. E. 608. In ...