Consumers Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 07 October 1936
• Docket Number: No. 23436.,23436.
• Citation: 4 N.E.2d 34,364 Ill. 145
• Parties: CONSUMERS CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

364 Ill. 145

4 N.E.2d 34

CONSUMERS CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 23436.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 10, 1936.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 7, 1936.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Michael Feinberg, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Myrtle Corrello, claimant, opposed by the Consumers Company, employer. The Circuit Court set aside an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of claimant, and the claimant brings error.

Judgment of the Circuit Court reversed and remanded, with directions.John A. Bloomingston, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Winston, Strawn & Shaw, of Chicago (Lloyd M. Bowden, George B. Christensen, and James H. Cartwright, all of Chicago, of counsel), for defendnat in error.

SHAW, Justice.

This writ of error was allowed to review a judgment of the circuit court of Cook county which set aside an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of the plaintiff in error for the death of her husband.

The deceased, Tony Corrello, was employed by the defendant in error as a chauffeur and had been in its employ for approximately 20 years. He was married and had one child-a boy 7 years of age. Shortly after 6 o'clock in the evening of January 21, 1933, a damaged truck was towed into defendant in error's coalyard, with Corrello at the wheel. It was loaded with coal and was driven by him at the time it was damaged. The coalyard is located at Twenty-Second and Morgan streets, in Chicago, and on the east side of it there is a slip and on the south the Chicago river. On the river bank there is an outdoor toilet, which is located on land owned by the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company, and, in order to reach it, it is necessary to walk along the piling adjacent to the river. The evidence shows that the night was dark and very foggy, and the last person to see Corrello alive was the night watchman, who saw him going in the direction of the toilet. He asked him who he was and where he was going. Corrello replied that he was a chauffeur and was going to the toilet. He was never seen alive again, and his body was recovered from the Chicago river on April 9, 1933.

It is the contention of the plaintiff in error that the circuit court erred in setting aside the award, that it was not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and that the defendant in error, within 30 days after the accident, did have sufficient notice thereof.

It is true, as argued, that the burden rests upon the claimant to show by competent testimony, not only the fact of injury, but that it occurred in connection with the employment of the deceased; to furnish evidence from which the inference can logically be drawn that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment, and that the award must be based upon something more than guessing or conjecture. It is also true that the proof of such facts may be established by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence, and that the greater or less probability, leading on the whole to a satisfactory conclusion, is all that can reasonably be required to establish controverted facts. Ohio Building Safety Vault Co. v. Industrial Board, 277 Ill. 96, 115 N.E. 149;Vulcan Detinning Co. v. Industrial Comm., 295 Ill. 141, 128 N.E. 917;Hydrox Chemical Co. v. Industrial Comm., 291 Ill. 579, 126 N.E. 564. In addition to the facts stated, it was proved that Corrello was a strong, healthy man; that his home life was happy; that he owned several pieces of income-producing property; was in good financial condition; was of a happy disposition, and had given a party for his stepdaughter the night before his disappearance. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that the love of life and instinct for self-preservation are present in every man. In cases where a state of facts exists upon which a theory of suicide or a theory of accident might otherwise be equally probable, the theory of accident will prevail. Sparks Milling Co. v. Industrial Comm., 293 Ill. 350, 127 N.E. 737;Wilkinson v. AEtna Life Ins. Co., 240 Ill. 205, 88 N.E. 550,25 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1256, 130 Am.St.Rep. 269. With this presumption in mind, we find no difficulty presented by this record. The deceased had every reason to want to live, as against the flimsiest sort of reasons advanced for assuming his intentional self-destruction. The time and place where the accident occurred, the condition of the weather, his known and legitimate reason for going to the place of his death, his relative unfamiliarity with the surroundings at that place-in short, all of the circumstances-lead the mind of a reasonable...