Chicago & A.R. Co. v. Indus. Borad of Illinois

• Decision Date: 05 October 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10699.,10699.
• Citation: 274 Ill. 336,113 N.E. 629
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: CHICAGO & A. R. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BORAD OF ILLINOIS.

274 Ill. 336

113 N.E. 629

CHICAGO & A. R. CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BORAD OF ILLINOIS.

No. 10699.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1916.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, McLean County; Sain Welty, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mary Turpin to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, Joseph Turpin, opposed by the Chicago & Alton Railroad Company, the employer. Compensation was awarded, the employer brought certiorari, and, the record of the Industrial Board being filed as return to the writ, it was quashed on the employer's motion, and the Board brings error. Judgment affirmed.

Barry & Morrissey, of Bloomington, for plaintiff in error.

Bracken & Young, of Bloomington (Silas H. Strawn, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

COOKE, J.

The Industrial Board of Illinois awarded Mary Turpin, administratrix of the estate of Joseph Turpin, deceased, the sum of $3,500, payable in weekly installments, against defendant in error for the death of her intestate, in a proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The record of the board was filed in the circuit court of McLean county as a return to a writ of certiorari, where the same was quashed on motion of defendant in error. The circuit court certified that this is a proper case to be reviewed by this court.

It will be necessary for us to consider but one of the reasons assigned by defendant in error why the action of the circuit court in quashing the record of the Industrial Board was proper and should be affirmed. One of the contentions made in the court below and one of the principal contentions made here is that there was no competent evidence tending to show that Joseph Turpin was injured while in the employ of defendant in error. The burden was upon the administratrix to show that the death of her intestate was caused by an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. Armour & Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois (No. 10719) 113 N. E. 138. If there was evidence presented on the hearing before the Industrial Board which fairly tended to show that Turpin received injuries which resulted in his death, arising out of and in the course of his employment by defendant in error, the judgment of the circuit court was wrong and must be reversed. Armour & Co. v. Industrial Board of Illinois, supra; Munn v. Industrial Board of Illinois (No. 10630) 113 N. E. 110.

Joseph Turpin was an engineer employed by defendant in error and for some time prior to his death was employed in the capacity of an ‘engine tamer.’ It was his duty to take engines which had been overhauled and repaired and break them in before they were put into regular service. This was done by running the engine back and forth in the yard limits. If he found no defect in the engine he reported it as ready for service. If any defect was found, it was his duty to report the same. On July 2, 1914, an engine was turned over to Turpin to break in which had been taken out of service on May 1, 1914, and placed in the shops at Bloomington for a general overhauling, where it remained until that day. Turpin and his fireman operated this engine, working with it practically all day for the purpose of determining whether it was in proper condition for service. The next day Turpin worked on another engine. The next day, July 4th, was a legal holiday. The next day, July 5th, was Sunday. The next day, July 6th, Turpin reported for work and stated he was not feeling well and returned home. A physician was called, who found him suffering from a strangulated or incarcerated hernia. He was removed to a hospital, where an operation was performed, and he soon afterwards died.

It is claimed that Turpin received the injury which produced the hernia in working with the engine which had been turned over to him on July 2d. The only testimony which has any bearing upon the question of how the injury was received was that of the attending physician, Turpin's fireman,and George A. McDonald, his brother-in-law. The physician testified to the condition in which he found Turpin when he called upon him on July 6th of his inability to reduce the hernia, and of the operation which was performed at the hospital. During his examination he was asked what history, if any, the patient gave him of the injury when he was called to treat him. An...