Henn v. Industrial Commission

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SCHAEFER
• Citation: Henn v. Industrial Commission, 121 N.E.2d 492, 3 Ill.2d 325 (Ill. 1954)
• Decision Date: 24 May 1954
• Docket Number: No. 33085,33085
• Parties: HENN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Page 492

121 N.E.2d 492

3 Ill.2d 325

HENN v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 33085.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

May 24, 1954.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing Sept. 20, 1954.

Fellheimer & Vicars, Pontiac, Irving Goodman, Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Niven & Clay, Pontiac, for defendants in error.

SCHAEFER, Chief Justice.

The issue in this case is whether the claimant, William Hopkins, was an employee or an independent contractor at the time he was injured. If he was an employee, he is entitled to an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act; if he was an independent contractor, he is not. After a hearing, an arbitrator of the Industrial Commission found that he was not an employee and dismissed his application for adjustment of claim for want of jurisdicton. On review, the commission set aside the decision of the arbitrator and awarded compensation for medical and surgical treatment, for temporary total disability and for permanent forty per cent loss of use of his left leg. The circuit court of Livingston County confirmed the award of the commission, and we allowed a writ of error.

John E. Henn, a resident of Detroit, Michigan, owned a garage in Odell, Illinois, which was occupied by six tenants who paid a aggregate monthly rental of about $160 per month. Henn's sister-in-law, Eleanora Henn, looked after the garage for him, collected the rents and arranged for repairs. On Saturday, April 28, 1951, a windstorm blew down one of the garage doors, and that evening Eleanora Henn telephoned William Hopkins at his home and asked him if he could repair it. He agreed to do so on the following Monday, and had been working less than an hour when the garage door 'got away from him' and fell on his left leg, breaking it between the knee and the hip. The injury was serious. Although there is a peripheral question as to whether the amount of medical and surgical expense was established by proper evidence, it is not disputed that Hopkins is entitled to a substantial award if he was an employee at the time of the injury.

While the arbitrator found that the commission was without jurisdiction because no employer-employee relationship existed, the commission reversed that finding and the circuit court confirmed the award of the commission. Where, as here, the facts are undisputed and the problem concerns the legal status to be inferred from them, we have held that 'If the undisputed facts permit an inference either way, * * * then the commission alone is empowered to draw the inference and its decision as to the weight of the evidence will not be disturbed on review.' Lawrence v. Industrial Comm., 391 Ill. 80, 85, 62 N.E.2d 686, 688. Only when the undisputed facts are susceptible of but a single inference does the issue become one of law, and so reviewable. Henry v. Industrial Comm., 412 Ill. 279, 284, 106 N.E.2d 185; Ceisel v. Industrial Comm., 400 Ill. 574, 81 N.E.2d 506; Lawrence v. Industrial Comm., 391 Ill. 80, 85, 62 N.E.2d 686.

An 'employee' under the act is defined as a 'person in the service of another under any contract of hire, * * * not including any person who is not engaged in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1953, chap. 48, par. 138.1.

The considerations relevant to a determination of disputed status as employee or independent contractor are familiar. As has been pointed out, no single facet of the relationship between the parties is determinative. Lawrence v. Industrial Comm., 391 Ill. 80, 62 N.E.2d 686; Postal Telegraph Sales Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 377 Ill. 523, 37 N.E.2d 175; cf. Restatement of the Law of Agency, sec. 220, comment (1)(b). The right to control the manner in which the work is done, whether compensation is paid for the job as a whole or on a time basis, the right to discharge, the skill required in the work to be done, the furnishing of materials, equipment and tools, all these and other factors enter into the determination. Lawrence v. Industrial Comm., 391 Ill. 80, 62 N.E.2d 686; Besse v. Industrial Comm., 336 Ill. 283, 168 N.E. 368; Bristol & Gale Co. v. Industrial Comm., 292 Ill. 16, 126 N.E. 599.

In this case there is no dispute...