Chicago Rys. Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois

• Decision Date: 21 December 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10942.,10942.
• Citation: 114 N.E. 534,276 Ill. 112
• Parties: CHICAGO RYS. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

276 Ill. 112

114 N.E. 534

CHICAGO RYS. CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 10942.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1916.

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

Certiorari by the Chicago Railways Company to review an award and finding of the Industrial Board, affirming an award of the Committee of Arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913, in favor of the estate of James Balla, deceased. The decision was affirmed, and plaintiff brings error on certificate granted by the circuit court. Affirmed.

Thomas H. Slusser and Frank L. Kriete, both of Chicago (W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

A. S. Langille, of Chicago (Daniel L. Cruice, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error

FARMER, J.

This is a writ of error to the circuit court of Cook county to review a judgment of that court confirming an award of the Industrial Board against plaintiff in error in favor of the administrator of the estate of James Balla, deceased, under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1913 (Laws 1913, p. 335). Balla was a motorman employed by plaintiff in error in the operation of one of its cars on October 17, 1913. On that day, while he was on the ground in front of his car, attempting to adjust the trolley so as to furnish current to move his car into the barn, the car suddenly started forward and caught his body between it and a car ahead, injuring him so that he died the same day. Claim was made by his administrator to the Industrial Board for an award. a committee of arbitration was appointed, and, after hearing the evidence and the stipulation of facts, made an award and finding against plaintiff in error. A petition for review by the Industrial Board was filed by plaintiff in error, and that board confirmed the finding and award of the committee on arbitration, and adjudged that plaintiff in error pay to the administrator $6.37 per week for 415 weeks and $6.45 for one additional week, commencing October 17, 1913. Plaintiff in error sued out a writ of certiorari from the circuit court of Cook county to review the award and finding of the Industrial Board. The circuit court confirmed the decision and award of the Industrial Board, and entered judgment against plaintiff in error in accordance therewith. The circuit court made a certificate that the cause was one proper to be reviewed by the Supreme Court, and thereupon this writ of error issued out of this court.

It is first contended that the act of 1913 is unconstitutional, because it interferes with the freedom of contract, and because it is special and class legislation, granting special and exclusive privileges and immunities to certain individuals, which are denied to others. The plaintiff in error insists the act of 1913 is different from the act of 1911 (Laws 1911, p. 314), which was held constitutional in Deibeikis v. Link-Belt Co., 261 Ill. 454, 104 N. E. 211, Ann. Cas. 1915A, 241, and not in violation of the provisions of the Constitution it is claimed the act of 1913 violates. The differences between the two acts relied on are that the 1911 act applied only to employers engaged in especially hazardous or dangerous employments or occupations, while the 1913 act provides ‘that any employer in this state may elect to provide and pay compensation’ under the act. Under the 1911 act every employer within the provisions of that act was presumed to have elected to provide and pay compensation according to the act, unless and until he filed a notice in writing to the contrary with the state bureau of labor statistics. Under the 1913 act the employer engaged in an extrahazardous occupation is likewise conclusively presumed to be under the act unless he fileds a written election to the contrary, but employers in other than extrahazardous occupations are not under the provisions of the act unless they file an election to provide and pay compensation under the act. Plaintiff in error is engaged in an occupation which is brought under the provisions of the 1913 act, unless notice of an election to the contrary is filed in writing. In the Deibeikis Case it was held such a provision in the act of 1911 did not violate the constitutional right of freedom to contract. There is no material distinction between the two acts with regard to employers engaged in hazardous occupations. We have held the former act was not subject to the objection here made, and it must follow, for the reasons given in the Deibeikis Case, that the 1913 act is not subject to such objections. There is no merit in the contention of plaintiff in error that the act is invalid, because it is special and class legislation, and grants special and exclusive privileges and immunities to some individuals, which are denied others, or that it is...