Chicago v. Indus. Comm'n

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FARMER
• Citation: Chicago v. Indus. Comm'n , 288 Ill. 126, 123 N.E. 278 (Ill. 1919)
• Decision Date: 05 June 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12511.,12511.
• Parties: CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

288 Ill. 126

123 N.E. 278

CHICAGO, R. I. & P. RY. CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12511.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 15, 1919.

Rehearing Denied June 5, 1919.

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

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Katherine Kraujalis for compensation for the death of Alexander Kraujalis, jalis, opposed by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company, employer. An award of compensation was made by the Industrial Commission, confirmed by the circuit court, and certified to the Supreme Court for review by writ of error. Affirmed.

Cartwright and Dunn, JJ., dissenting.M. L. Bell and A. B. Enoch, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

John L. Hopkins and A. G. Abbott, both of Chicago, for defendant in error.

FARMER, J.

Alexander Kraujalis was employed by the Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company in its yards at Blue Island as a locomotive boiler washer. While engaged in work he was shot and killed in the roundhouse of the railroad company by another employé of the company, who was known as a machinist's helper, and was employed by the same company. The killing occurred Monday night November 19, 1917. Kraujalis left surviving him a wife and two children, and application was made for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i); it being claimed that the death occurred in the course of and arose out of the employment of deceased.

Kraujalis was, as we have said, a locomotive boiler washer, and for some months his assistant or helper in that work was his brother-in-law, Kaupus. Saturday night, November 17th, Kaupus was not on duty, and Hunt, a machinist helper, was assigned to the duty of assisting deceased in the work. Through the week machinist helpers were let off at 11:30 p. m., and on Saturday night at 10:30 p. m. Saturday night, November 17th, Hunt quit and left his work about 10 o'clock p. m., and deceased was left without any helper. Kraujalis reported that fact to the foreman, Dan Dougherty, and the foreman directed him to get a Mexican to help him the rest of the night. Monday night, November 19th, Kaupus was assisting Kraujalis as his helper, and Hunt was at work as a helper to a machinist named Deady. About 7 o'clock p. m. the deceased went to the storehouse for some oil, and about the same time Hunt was sent by Deady to the same storehouse for some cotter-keys. The two men met in the storehouse, and a quarrel ensued. Hunt called deceased a vile name, and they engaged in a fight. Kraujalis threw Hunt down and held him for some minutes. Hunt pleaded with him to be allowed to get up, which Kraujalis permitted him to do, and when he arose he struck Kraujalis on the jaw and ‘put him out.’ Kraujalis called for his brother-in-law, Kaupus, who came to the storehouse and threw Hunt out. He testified Hunt said Kraujalis had reported him to the boss and that if he was fired he would kill Kraujalis. Immediately afterwards Kraujalis and Kaupus went to the office of Dougherty, the foreman, and reported that Hunt was fighting them. Hunt had returned to his place of work, and Dougherty and the two men went to where Hunt was engaged, and Dougherty called for Hunt. He came to where the men were, and there struck, or tried to strike, Kaupus with a sledge hammer. In some manner the sledge hammer got out of Hunt's hands, and Kaupus testified he then tried to grab him in the breast. About that time another employé came by with a hose on his shoulder, and Kaupus took the hose and struck Hunt with the end of it, on which was a metal tip. The blow staggered Hunt, and when he recovered he ran or went away. Kraujalis and Kaupus went back to the engine they were washing out. Kaupus turned the water on, and Kraujalis was handling and directing the hose. While they were thus engaged, Hunt came with a revolver and began shooting at Kaupus. One bullet passed through Kaupus's shirt, and he ran away. Hunt then shot Kraujalis, wounding him so severely that he died.

The above is the substance of the material testimony as to how the death occurred. The arbitrator before whom the application for compensation was heard denied compensation. A petition for a review was filed before the Industrial Commission, and upon the hearing the commission awarded compensation to the applicant. The award was confirmed by the circuit court of Cook county, and that court certified the cause was a proper one to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Accordingly the case is before us by writ of error.

A reversal is asked by the plaintiff in error upon two grounds: (1) The injury to deceased which caused his death did not arise out of his employment; (2) both deceased and Hunt were engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the shooting, and no award can therefore be made under the state Compensation Act.

The determination of the question whether an injury arose out of the employment in some cases presents one of the most difficult problems in connection with the act. Glass on Workmen's Compensation, 40. This Court has in several cases adopted the definition of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts in the McNicol Case, 215 Mass. 497, 102 N. E. 697, L. R. A. 1916A, 306, viz.:

‘It [the injury] ‘arises out of’ the employment when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises ‘out of’ the employment.'

See Ohio Building Vault Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 96, 115 N. E. 149;Mueller Construction Co. v. Industrial Board, 283 Ill. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, L. R. A. 1918F, 891, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 808.

Kraujalis was not the superior of Hunt in the sense that he had authority to discharge him, but his (Kraujalis') work was such that he could not perform it without the assistance of a helper. When the helper quit work before the work was completed, it was...