Dambold v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 10 December 1926
• Docket Number: No. 17525.,17525.
• Parties: DAMBOLD v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

323 Ill. 377

154 N.E. 128

DAMBOLD

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 17525.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 28, 1926.

Rehearing Denied with Modification, Dec. 10, 1926.

Error to Circuit Court, McLean County; Edward Barry, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Nellie A. Martin, claimant, for the death of Harvey W. Martin, her husband, opposed by W. J. Dambold, employer. An award of the Industrial Commission was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed, and award set aside.

Morrissey, Sullivan & Rust, of Bloomington (John O. Morrissey, of Bloomington, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Costigan & Wollrab, of Bloomington, for defendants in error.

STONE, C. J.

The circuit court of McLean county confirmed an award of the Industrial Commission granting compensation to defendant in error for the death of her husband, Harvey W. Martin, who was struck and killed by a west-bound passengertrain on the Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis (Big Four) Railroad while on his way to work at the place of business of plaintiff in error in the city of Bloomington. Deceased had been employed as a teamster by plaintiff in error. His duties required that he go to plaintiff in error's barn each day in time to have his team ready for work at 7 o'clock in the morning. Plaintiff in error's place of business is located on South McLean street, adjoining the right of way of the Lake Erie & Western Railroad. The tracks of this road extend along the north side of the Big Four tracks, each road extending in a northwesterly direction through the city of Bloomington. There is a crossing over these tracks at Gridley street, about 500 feet west of plaintiff in error's place of business. The beceased lived south of the railroad tracks and west of the Gridley street crossing. The Big Four has three tracks, and the Lake Erie & Western four tracks, crossing Gridley street. The tracks of the two roads are about 20 feet apart. In order to reach his place of employment by public highway, deceasedwould proceed north on Gridley street, cross the tracks of both railroads to Oakland avenue, thence east to McLean street one block, and thence south on that street to the place of his employment.

It appears that deceased, on the morning of the accident resulting in his death, upon reaching the Gridley street crossing, crossed the tracks of the Big Four, and then started east along those tracks, and when a few steps in front of a west-bound engine stepped in front of it and was struck and killed. The question involved in the case is whether or not, at the time of his death, the deceased was within the scope of his employment, and whether his injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The evidence of the train crew shows that he was east of the public crossing at Gridley street, and was walking east on the railroad right of way when struck. It appears that this route is a few hundred feet shorter than that following the public streets. There is no public way between the tracks of the two railroads.

[2][3] A workman is said to be in the course of his employment when he, within the time covered by such employment, is doing something he might reasonably do while so employed, at a place where he might be while in this employment. The test relates to time, conduct, and place. The words ‘arising out of’ indicate a causal relation. Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11, 116 N. E. 684, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 764. There may be circumstances under which an...