Heed v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 15 April 1919
• Docket Number: No. 12565.,12565.
• Citation: 287 Ill. 505,122 N.E. 801
• Parties: HEED v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

287 Ill. 505

122 N.E. 801

HEED

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 12565.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

April 15, 1919.

Error to Circuit Court, Douglas County; George A. Sentel, Judge.

Proceedings by Thomas S. Pierce against W. J. Jackson, receiver of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, of which Thomas D. Heed is now receiver, for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i). From a judgment of the circuit court confirming an award of the Industrial Board, the receiver brings error. Affirmed.H. M. Steely and H. M. Steely, Jr., both of Danville, for plaintiff in error.

Charles W. Wortman and Clark & Hutton, all of Danville, for defendant in error.

CARTWRIGHT, J.

The circuit court of Douglas county confirmed an award of the Industrial Board to the defendant in error, Thomas S. Pierce, for an accidental injury to his left hand received in the employment of W. J. Jackson, receiver of the Chicago & Eastern Illinois Railroad Company, of which the plaintiff in error, Thomas D. Heed, is now receiver, and certified that the case was one proper to be reviewed by this court.

The grounds urged for the reversal of the judgment are: (1) That Thomas S. Pierce was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident; (2) that no notice of a claim for compensation was given within six months after the accident; (3) that the award is excessive in amount; (4) that improper evidence was admitted, causing an excessive award.

Concerning the nature of the commerce in which Pierce was employed, the facts are as follows: He performed the ordinary duties of a janitor in the shops of the company at Villa Grove. His work was sweeping, cleaning up, building fires in stoves during cold weather, helping to load scrap iron, and doing other work of that kind. The shops contained lathes, planers, and machinery, and slight repairs were there made upon engines which ran in and out of Villa Grove. The engines hauled trains both in interstate and intrastate commerce. On the morning of February [287 Ill. 507]6, 1916, Pierce came to the shops and was splitting and breaking up kindling wood for the purpose of building fires in the stoves when a splinter flew from a board and struck the middle finger of his left hand.

If Pierce was engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the accident, he was not entitled to compensation under the state law, and any remedy for his injury would be confined to the federal Employers' Liability Act (Act April 22, 1908, c. 149, 35 Stat. 65 [U. S. Comp. St. §§ 8657-8665]), even if he would have no right of action under that act. New York Central Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 147, 37 Sup. Ct. 546, 61 L. Ed. 1045, L. R. A. 1918C, 439, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1139;Erie Railroad Co. v. Winfield, 244 U. S. 170, 37 Sup. Ct. 556, 61 L. Ed. 1057, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 662. Slight repairs were made in these shops to engines which were engaged in both classes of commerce, and the facts bring the case within the rule declared in Minneapolis & St. Louis Railroad Co. v. Winters, 242 U. S. 353, 37 Sup. Ct. 170, 61 L. Ed. 358, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 54. In that case a machinist's helper engaged in making repairs in the roundhouse upon an engine which had been used in hauling freight...