Deal v. Industrial Commission

• Citation: 357 N.E.2d 541,65 Ill.2d 234,2 Ill.Dec. 374
• Decision Date: 24 November 1976
• Docket Number: No. 48327,48327
• Parties: , 2 Ill.Dec. 374 Edward J. DEAL, d/b/a Edward J. Deal Co., et al., Appellants, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ray L. Holland, Appellee.)
• Court: Supreme Court of Illinois

Page 541

357 N.E.2d 541

65 Ill.2d 234, 2 Ill.Dec. 374

Edward J. DEAL, d/b/a Edward J. Deal Co., et al., Appellants, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Ray L. Holland, Appellee.)

No. 48327.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 24, 1976.

Perz & McGuire, Chicago (Frank M. Perz and James C. Serkland, Chicago, of counsel), for appellants.

Van Duzer, Gershon, Jordan & Petersen, Chicago (Warren G. Petersen, Chicago, of counsel), for appellee.

WARD, Chief Justice.

This is a direct appeal under our Rule 302(a) (58 Ill.2d R. 302(a)) by the respondent, Edward J. Deal, d/b/a Edward J. Deal Co., from a judgment of the circuit court of Cook County confirming the Industrial Commission's award of compensation to the claimant, Ray L. Holland, an employee of the Deal Co.

The claimant was the only witness to testify before the arbitrator. He testified that he was a certified public accountant employed in the respondent's income tax department. All of his duties were performed on the employer's premises, a store front office, which was located on Grove Avenue in Arlington Heights. There were only two ways to enter and leave the office, through the front door facing Grove Avenue and through the back door into an alley. The office's front door opened into the interior of the office, and immediately outside the doorway and abutting the building's front was a one-foot-wide cement apron which gradually inclined down to the adjacent public sidewalk.

On April 5, 1973, the claimant was leaving through the office's front door intending to cross the street to his parked car and go to lunch. He testified that when one foot was on the cement apron and the other foot was descending to the public sidewalk he was struck on his right side by a bicycle traveling along the sidewalk. He fractured his right arm while attempting to break his fall onto the sidewalk.

There was no evidence presented concerning the ownership of the cement apron. At the conclusion of the hearing before the arbitrator the respondent's attorney requested a two-day continuance to allow him to present evidence concerning the ownership of the apron. This motion was denied, but on review before the Commission, no evidence as to ownership was offered.

The respondent first suggests that since the factual circumstances surrounding the accident are not in dispute, a question of law is presented and the decision of the Commission need not be considered. We cannot accept this contention. It is only where there is no factual dispute or no conflicting inferences that can be drawn from the facts that a question only of law is presented. (Chicago Transit Authority v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 78, 83, 329 N.E.2d 198.) We consider there may be conflicting inferences capable of being drawn here. Where the inferences drawn by the Commission can be said to be reasonable, this court will not discard the inferences drawn by the Commission simply because other inferences might have been drawn from the evidence. A court will not disturb a finding of the Commission unless the finding is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Warren v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 373, 376, 335 N.E.2d 488.

Of course, an injury must arise out of and in the course of employment to be compensable. (Bloom v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 248, 250, 335 N.E.2d 423; Warren v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 373, 376, 335 N.E.2d 488.) Generally injuries sustained while the employee is going to or returning from his place of employment are held not to arise out of or in the course of employment. (Warren v. Industrial Com., 61 Ill.2d 373, 376, 335 N.E.2d 488; Osborn v. Industrial Com., 50 Ill.2d 150, 152, 277 N.E.2d 833.) But this court has consistently held that an injury accidentally received on the premises of the employer by an employee going to or from his actual employment by a customary or permitted way or path will be deemed to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. M & M Parking Co. v. Industrial Com., 55 Ill.2d 252, 257, 302 N.E.2d 265; Northwestern Steel & Wire Co. v. Industrial Com., 38 Ill.2d 441, 445, 232 N.E.2d 293; Chmelik v. Vana, 31 Ill.2d 272, 279, 201 N.E.2d 434.

However, the respondent argues that the Commission could not properly find that the injury...