City of Joliet v. Indus. Comm'n, 13085.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: DUNN
• Citation: City of Joliet v. Indus. Comm'n, 291 Ill. 555, 126 N.E. 618 (Ill. 1920)
• Decision Date: 18 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13085.,13085.
• Parties: CITY OF JOLIET v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

291 Ill. 555

126 N.E. 618

CITY OF JOLIET

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 13085.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1920.

Error to Circuit Court, Will County; Dorrance Dibell, Judge.

Proceedings by Henrietta Obrecht, administratrix, for compensation for the death of Joseph Obrecht, employé, opposed by the City of Joliet, employer. Bill in chancery to review award of the Industrial Commission allowing compensation was dismissed, and the City brings error.

Affirmed.

Hill & Bullington, of Hillsboro, for plaintiff in error.

Ralph C. Austin and William R. McCabe, both of Joliet (William C. Mooney and Frank J. Wise, both of Joliet, of counsel), for defendant in error.

DUNN, C. J.

The city of Joliet sued out this writ of error to review a decree of the circuit court of Will county which dismissed a bill in chancery to review an award of the Industrial Commission allowing compensation for the death of Joseph Obrecht, an employé of the city, who died on Sunday, July 30, 1916, of heat stroke suffered on that day. The city's contention is that the death does not appear to have been caused by an accident arising out of the deceased's employment. Obrecht was employed as an engineer at a pumping station, working 8 hours a day, except on Sunday, when he worked 12 hours. He was 57 years old, was about 5 feet 10 inches tall, and weighed about 200 pounds. On July 30th it was very hot, the thermometer registering over 100 degrees, as it had for several days before. Obrecht went to work Sunday morning, and was seen at work in the engine room about 12 o'clock, standing in front of the compressor, which he was wiping with some waste. Soon after 1 o'clock his wife came to the building to bring him his lunch, and found him unconscious on a bench in the room. He was taken home in an ambulance, and died in a few minutes after the arrival of a physician who had been summoned and who testified that he died from heat stroke. The pumping station where the deceased worked was a frame building lined with tar paper, about 28 feet by 32 feet in size and 12 feet high, with doors in the south and north sides and eight windows. There was no ceiling, and the roof sloped from the four sides to a peak, where there was a ventilator, which, as well as the windows, was open. In the building were a pump, two compressors, and two motors. The plant was run by electricity, and the manual labor of the employés was light. There was no artificial heat except that produced by the compressors, which in operation became heated to such an extent that the hand could not be held against them and the heat could be noticed several feet away. The compressors were in the southwest part of the building, with a space of about 3 feet between them and the south wall. It was in this space that Obrecht was working at 12 o'clock. There was no breeze on that day. The air in the building was stirred somewhat by the flywheel, which made 120 revolutions a minute, but the temperature inside the building was noticeably warmer than on the outside. One of the witnesses estimated that it was about 12 degrees warmer. While the plaintiff in error contends that the evidence justifies the conclusion that it was no hotter in the building than outside, it was the duty of the commission, and is not ours, to weigh the evidence, and the commission might well have concluded that in the place where Obrecht worked he was more exposed to danger from heat stroke than that to which people generally were subjected by the prevailing summer heat, especially where he was working at noon, between the south wall and the compressor. The commission made findings that the deceased, while in the performance of his duties, suffered a heat stroke, as a result of which he died, and that the heat stroke was superinduced by the excessive amount of heat in the room in which he was working, and there was evidence to sustain its findings. The heat stroke occurred in the course of the employment, and there was evidence from which the commission might reasonably conclude that it arose out of the employment. The man was overcome by the heat. In his employment, and because of it, he was exposed to a degree of heat beyond the ordinary temperature of the day. While it cannot be demonstrated that he would not have been overcome if he had not been at work, the fact is that he was overcome under circumstances which furnish an adequate cause for that result, and neither the commission nor the court will indulge in conjecture as to what might have happened under other circumstances. He might have died from the heat of the day if he had stayed at home, but he did not, and he did die from the heat of the day and the additional effect of his work and the artificial heat of the engine room.

The Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i)...