Container Corp. of America v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 24 September 1948
• Docket Number: No. 30518.,30518.
• Citation: 401 Ill. 129,81 N.E.2d 571
• Parties: CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

401 Ill. 129

81 N.E.2d 571

CONTAINER CORPORATION OF AMERICA

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 30518.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Sept. 24, 1948.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; E. J. Schnackenberg, judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Wilma Silas, for compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by Container Corporation of America. To review a judgment sustaining an award of the Industrial Commission, Container Corporation of America brings error.

Judgment reversed and award set aside.

Clarence S. Piggott, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Lester B. Marshall and Jacob Baskin, both of Chicago, for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

Defendant in error, Wilma Silas, filed application for adjustment of claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act against the Container Corporation of America, a corporation, plaintiff in error, seeking compensation for the death of her husband, Willie Silas, deceased, which it was alleged arose out of and in the course of his employment with plaintiff in error. The matter was referred to an arbitrator, who awarded compensation. On review before the Industrial Commission, at which no additional evidence was heard, the award of the arbitrator was sustained. On certiorari, the circuit court of Cook County affirmed the finding of the Industrial Commission. The Container Corporation now seeks to review the finding of the circuit court, contending that the death of Willie Silas did not arise out of or in the course of his employment.

The facts show that Willie Silas was working for the Container Corporation on the day that the injuries were sustained which resulted in his death. A roll of paper, which was threaded around the rolls of a large drying machine, broke. A fellow employee, Jim Lee Petty, and a foreman, Arthur Jackson, went to the top of the machine to start threading the broken paper through the rollers. Willie Silas was working beneath them. Petty, who had been working at that job only about three days, dropped the sheet and it fell on Willie Silas, who was about two and one-half feet beneath him. Silas yelled, ‘No G-D- body is carrying that sheet up there.’ Petty replied, ‘We all got to learn.’ Nothing more was said at that time.

Some thirty minutes later, after completing the job of winding the paper through the machine, Petty went over to a place some distance from the drying machine where the earlier incident occurred, and remained there to cool off. Silas approached Petty there, and in an abusive manner said he was going to cut his throat. When Silas said that, Petty struck him with his right fist and Silas fell down. Silas then got up and faced him again, and Petty again struck Silas with his fist. Silas went down again, and as he did so, his head struck against a machine, and as a result, he sustained head injuries which caused his death.

The evidence is silent as to whether or not Silas had a knife on his person with which to carry out his threat, but the witness, Petty, testified that he did not see a knife in Silas's hand when the threat was uttered. The evidence is undisputed that Silas and Petty had never proviously had any trouble between them, nor was there any apparent animosity before the time that Petty dropped the sheet of paper on Silas.

The principal question presented is whether or not the death of Silas arose out of and in the course of his employment. Armour & Co. v. Industrial Comm., 397 Ill. 433, 74 N.E.2d 704;Riley v. Industrial Comm., 394 Ill. 126, 67 N.E.2d 172;Scholl v. Industrial Comm., 366 Ill. 588, 10 N.E.2d 360, 112 A.L.R. 1254;Vincennes Bridge Co. v. Industrial Comm., 351 Ill. 444, 184 N.E. 603. We have repeatedly held that the employer is not an insurer of the safety of its employees at all times during the period of the employment. Chicago Hardware Foundry Co. v. Industrial Comm., 393 Ill. 294, 65 N.E.2d 778;Illinois Country Club, Inc. v. Industrial Comm., 387 Ill. 484, 56 N.E.2d 786;Mt. Olive & Staunton Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 374 Ill. 461, 30 N.E.2d 32;Boorde v. Industrial Comm., 310 Ill. 62, 141 N.E. 399. There must be a causal connection between the conditions existing on the employer's premises and the injury of the employee, and the accident must have had its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment. We said in Illinois Country Club, Inc. v. Industrial Comm., 387 Ill. 484, 56 N.E.2d 786, 788, ‘An injury may be said to arise out of the employment when, upon consideration of all the circumstances, there is apparent to the rational mind a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. The mere fact that an employee was present at the place of injury because of...