Decatur Ry. & Light Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois

• Decision Date: 08 February 1917
• Docket Number: No. 10905.,10905.
• Citation: 114 N.E. 915,276 Ill. 472
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: DECATUR RY. & LIGHT CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

276 Ill. 472

114 N.E. 915

DECATUR RY. & LIGHT CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 10905.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 21, 1916.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 8, 1917.

Error to Circuit Court, Macon County; William K. Whitfield, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Arthur W. Mulverhill to obtain compensation for personal injuries, opposed by the Decatur Railway & Light Company, employer. The Industrial Board, on petition for a review of the award made by the Committee of Arbitration, awarded compensation in the sum of $2,400, payable in weekly installments of $5.77 and a pension of $16 a month from the expiration of such weekly payments, for life of claimant, and on certiorari from the circuit court the award was confirmed, and the employer brings error. Affirmed.Charles C. Le Forgee and Thomas W. Samuels, both of Decatur, and George W. Black, of Peoria, for plaintiff in error.

McDavid & Monroe, of Decatur, for defendants in error.

DUNN, J.

Arthur W. Mulverhill was run over by a freight train on the Wabash Railroad, and injured so that both of his legs had to be amputated. He presented a claim for compensation against the Decatur Railway & Light Company, and the Industrial Board, on a petition for a review of the award of the committee of arbitration, made an award of $2,400, payable in weekly installments of $5.77, and a pension of $16 a month from the expiration of such weekly payments for the rest of his life. On certiorari from the circuit court of Macon county the award was confirmed, and this writ of error is prosecuted by the Decatur Railway & Light Company to reverse that judgment.

The grounds urged for reversal are that Mulverhill was not an employé of the plaintiff in error, but was an independent contractor; that if he was such employé his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment; and that the amount is excessive.

In the summer of 1914 Mulverhill was in the employ of the plaintiff in error as a laborer on the streets at 17 1/2 cents an hour, working 10 hours a day. He belonged to the hospital association of the plaintiff in error's employés, and 50 cents a month was deducted from his wages by the company for the association. In Septemberhe began working under a contract for unloading coal for the company at its power plant. The agreement, which was oral, was made with the chief engineer of the company. Mulverhill was to receive 5 cents a ton for unloading the coal and was to see that the house was kept full of coal while there was coal to unload. The cars loaded with coal were set, and Mulverhill unloaded the coal where he was told to, hiring and paying his own help, the company furnishing all the tools. The chief engineer had the power to annul the contract at any time without notice to Mulverhill and to control the scooping of the coal. There is evidence tending to show that the plaintiff in error retained from Mulverhill's wages for September the hospital dues for that month and furnished him free medical services during October, and also that during the time he was shoveling coal he was furnished a pass by the plaintiff in error, and that passes were only given to employés of the company.

The plaintiff in error insists that Mulverhill was an independent contractor, because he was not, in the unloading of the coal, under the supervision and direction of the plaintiff in error as to the manner in which the work should be done, that he hired and paid his own help, and that he was paid by the ton. On the other hand, there was evidence that it was the duty of Mulverhill to keep the binds full; that the head fireman directed him where to scoop the coal, when to quit, and when there was not enough coal in certain bins told him to scoop more, and that Mulverhill was under his orders to keep the bins filled. He was subject to discharge at any time without notice and without a reason. The right to control the manner of doing the work is the principal consideration which determines whether the worker is an employé or an independent contractor. This work was very simple. No control would ordinarily be required except to direct where the coal should be unloaded and this control was exercised. There was nothing in the contract indicating that the company surrendered the right to control the manner in which the unloading should be done. It retained the right to discharge Mulverhill on the instant. The method of payment was not inconsistent with a contract of hiring, and the retention of hospital dues and the giving of a pass tended to establish the relation of employer and employé. There was evidence from which the Industrial Board might reasonably find that Mulverhill was an employé of the plaintiff in error.

The plaintiff in error relies on the case of Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Co. v. Bond, 240 U. S. 449, 36 Sup. Ct. 403, 60 L. Ed. 735, which involved...