F. Becker Asphaltum Roofing Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 07 February 1929
• Docket Number: No. 18781.,18781.
• Citation: 333 Ill. 340,164 N.E. 668
• Parties: F. BECKER ASPHALTUM ROOFING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

333 Ill. 340

164 N.E. 668

F. BECKER ASPHALTUM ROOFING CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 18781.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 20, 1928.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 7, 1929.

Commissioner's Opinion.

Error to Circuit Court, Winnebago County; Arthur E. Fisher, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by R. L. Painter, opposed by the F. Becker Asphaltum Roofing Company. An award of the Industrial Commission in claimant's favor was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed, and award set aside.William Greene and H. L. Howard, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Hollerich & Hurley, of La Salle (C. H. Linscott, of Rockford, of counsel), for defendant in error.

PARTLOW, C.

The circuit court of Winnebago county confirmed an award of the Industrial Commission in favor of R. L. Painter against plaintiff in error, the F. Becker Asphaltum Roofing Company, and the case is before this court on a writ of error.

The sole question is whether or not the injury grew out of and was in the course of the employment.

Plaintiff in error makes, lays, and markets a patent roofing material which is laid over wooden shingles. It has twenty-two branch offices at which roofers and salesmen are employed. Painter was a roofer and had worked for about two years at the Rockford branch and for about five weeks prior to the injury at the La Salle branch. His duties were to put on roofing and supervise the work of other roofers. For about four years it had been the custom of some of these branches to hold annual picnics for their employés for the purpose of creating a good feeling among them, boosting their morale, and aiding business. Plans were made to hold a picnic by the employés of the La Salle branch on August 21, 1926. Painter claims the arrangements were made by J. H. Eklund, the manager, while plaintiff in error claims they were agreed upon between the manager and the employés. The determination of that question is not material to a decision of the case. The day of the picnic was a holiday, business was suspended, the employes and their families were asked to attend the picnic, and they were to receive half pay for the day. Plaintiff in error was to furnish the ice cream and soft drinks and the employés were to furnish their own transportation and food. A collection was taken among the employés for prizes for contests, to which plaintiff in error contributed. Some of the witnesses testified that Eklund said that in order to draw half pay the employés would have to attend the picnic, but the evidence shows that some employés who did not attend received their pay. Painter had four children, who lived in Rockford with a housekeeper. He made arrangements with the housekeeper to drive from Rockford to La Salle on the morning of the picnic. He told Eklund he was going to meet his family several miles out on the hard road and they would not get to the picnic until about 11 o'clock. Painter drove out in a car belonging to a salesman named Cannon and met his family. The housekeeper, Painter, and two of the children got into the Painter car, and Cannon and two of the children were in the Cannon car. The Cannon car led the way and the Painter car followed. About four miles from the picnic grounds, about 11:45 a. m., the Painter car was struck by an interurban car of the Illinois Traction System and Painter was injured. On the evening of that day Eklund, in company with Cannon, ordered a private nurse for Painter, and Eklund wrote his name, address, and the telephone number of plaintiff in error in a memorandum book at the hospital in order that the hospital authorities might know who would be responsible for the hospital bill. A day or two later, Cannon, in the presence of a nurse, told Eklund that he (Cannon) had told the nurse they wanted her to take care of this man and they were going to see that everything was taken care of, to which remark Eklund replied ‘certainly.’

The Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd rev. St. 1927, c. 48, §§ 138-172) does not apply to every accident or injury which may happen to an employé during his employment. The injury contemplated by the act must have had its origin in some risk of the employment. It must arise out of and in the course of the employment or be incident thereto. Edelweiss Gardens v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 459, 125 N. E. 260;Jones Foundry Co. v. Industrial Com., 312 Ill. 27, 143 N. E. 420. A risk is incident to the employment when it belongs to or is connected with the duties a workman has to perform under his contract of service. Boorde v. Industrial Com., 310 Ill. 62, 141 N. E. 399;Weis Paper Mill Co. v. Industrial Com., 293 Ill. 284, 127 N. E. 732. A Workman is within the course of his employment when, within the time covered by such employment, he is doing something he might reasonably do while so employed, at a place where he might be while in that employment. Dambold v. Industrial Com., 323 Ill. 377, 154 N. E. 128;Terminal Railroad Ass'n v. Industrial Com., 309 Ill. 203, 140 N. E. 827.

The test relates to the time, conduct and place. An injury not fairly traceable to the employment as the contributing proximate cause does not arise out of the employment. Jefferson Printing Co. v. Industrial Com., 312 Ill. 575, 144 N. E. 356. There must be some causal relation between the injury and the employment, and if the injury is sustained by reason of some cause having no relation to the employment, it does not arise out of the employment. It is not enough that the...