Chicago Co v. Industrial Commission of Illinois

• Decision Date: 04 January 1932
• Docket Number: No. 79,79
• Citation: 77 A.L.R. 1367,284 U.S. 296,76 L.Ed. 304,52 S.Ct. 151
• Parties: CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS et al
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

284 U.S. 296

52 S.Ct. 151

76 L.Ed. 304

CHICAGO & E. I. R. CO.

v INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 79.

Argued Dec. 1, 1931.

Decided Jan. 4, 1932.

Messrs. Edward W. Rawlins, of Chicago, Ill., and Thomas P. Littlepage, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Mr. Samuel E. Hirsch, of Chicago, Ill., for respondents.

Mr. Justice SUTHERLAND delivered the opinion of the Court.

Thomas, an employee of the railroad company, in attempting to oil an electric motor while it was running, was injured by having his hand caught in the gears. The railroad was engaged in both intrastate and interstate commerce. The motor furnished power for hoisting coal into a chute, to be taken therefrom by, and for the use of, locomotive engines principally employed in the movement of interstate freight. An action was brought before the Industrial Commission of Illinois to recover compensation for the injury under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Illinois (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1931, c. 48, §§ 138-172).

The railroad company contended, and an arbitrator, appointed by the commission, found, that the work in which Thomas was engaged was in interstate commerce, that the case therefore was not within the state act, and the commission was without jurisdiction. The commission, on review, held otherwise, and awarded compensation aggregating $2,184.64. The court below affirmed the award upon a writ of certiorari authorized by state statute. The state Supreme Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to review the judgment; and the case is properly here on certiorari to the state circuit court. Amer. Ry. Exp. Co. v. Levee, 263 U. S. 19, 20, 44 S. Ct. 11, 68 L. Ed. 140; West. Un. Tel. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 366, 31 S. Ct. 399, 55 L. Ed. 498.

The contention that Thomas was employed in interstate commerce at the time of the injury rests upon the decisions of this court in Erie R. R. Co. v. Collins, 253 U. S. 77, 40 S. Ct. 450, 64 L. Ed. 790, and Erie R. R. Co. v. Szary, 253 U. S. 86, 40 S. Ct. 454, 64 L. Ed. 794. In the Collins Case, the employee, at the time of his injury, was operating a gasoline engine to pump water into a tank for the use of locomotives engaged in both interstate and intrastate commerce. In the Szary Case, the duty of the employee was to dry sand by the application of heat for the use of locomotives operating in both kinds of commerce; and he was so employed when injured. In each case this court held that the employee was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury, within the terms of the Federal Employers' Liability Act (45 USCA §§ 51-59).

The only difference between those cases and this one is that here the work of the employee related to coal, while in the Collins Case it related to water, and, in the Szary Case, to sand. Obviously the difference is not...