Henry v. Industrial Commission

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSCHAEFER
CitationHenry v. Industrial Commission, 106 N.E.2d 185, 412 Ill. 279 (Ill. 1952)
Decision Date22 May 1952
Docket NumberNos. 32284-85,s. 32284-85
PartiesHENRY et al. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

Price, Kimball & Anthony, of Chicago, and W. C. Ropiequet, of St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiffs in error Randolph Service Co., et al.

Walter J. Schuwerk, of Evansville, for plaintiff in error Otto Renner.

Stone & Fowler, and August L. Fowler, both of Marion, for defendants in error.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

Otto Renner is a carpenter. On October 31, 1949, while engaged in the reconstruction of a grain elevator at Prairie du Rocher, he sustained an injury resulting in total permanent loss of vision in his right eye. He filed an amended application for adjustment of claim with the Industrial Commission, alleging that his injury arose out of his employment by Randolph Service Company and Roy Henry, a carpenter contractor, and naming as respondents Randolph Service Company, Henry, and their respective insurance carriers. The arbitrator and the commission found that Henry was the employer, directed that compensation be paid by him and his carrier, and dismissed the proceeding as to Randolph Service Company. On certiorari, the circuit court of Randolph County found that Randolph Service Company, rather than Henry, was the employer. The award of the commission was set aside and an award for compensation entered against Randolph Service Company and its insurance carrier, and the claim against Henry and his carrier was dismissed. We allowed a writ of error.

There in no dispute as to Renner's right to compensation, or as to the amount due him. The sole issue is whether, at the time of his injury, he was employed by Roy Henry or by Randolph Service Company. Henry has been a carpenter, builder and contractor for twenty years. Renner began working for Henry in April, 1948, and, except for periods in the winter months when there was no work, had worked for him continuously until the date of the injury. In late August or early September of 1949, the manager of Randolph Service Company told Henry that the company wanted some carpenter help in order to remodel its elevator and inquired whether Henry could furnish such help, 'as they wanted it when they wanted it.' Henry replied that he thought he could, and the parties then agreed upon a wage of two dollars per hour, the union scale, for the work to be done by Henry and his men. Henry paid his men at the rate of $1.90 per hour, the extraten cents being retained by him for his services in picking up tools. He furnished no material for the building, but supplied working equipment, such as ladders and tools, for himself and his men.

Henry testified that at the time he was working on the elevator he had two other jobs going; that Sidney Phillips acted as superintendent for Randolph Service Company on the elevator work; that each week Phillips would instruct him as to how many carpenters to bring for each day; that he, Henry, would then determine which carpenters went to work on the elevator, that he would transfer men from job to job as the situation demanded; that he sent two men and went himself to the elevator job the first day or two; that thereafter he used from two or three to as high as six or seven men daily on that job, the average being four or five, and that one of these was always Renner. He further testified that he received instructions as to what to do, every morning or throughout the day from Phillips, and would relay them to his men; that desides himself and his carpenters, there were common laborers working on the job, and that Phillips had a sort of rough sketch of the work to be done, which was not furnished to Henry. Finally, he stated that he kept the time records of his own men, was paid at two-week intervals by Albrecht, and, in turn, paid his own men every Saturday.

Claimant Renner testified that he was not transferred from the elevator job to any of Henry's other jobs; that while he was employed on the elevator job for a month or more prior to the accident, Henry told him where to go and what to do, and that his direct supervisors were Henry and Henry's foreman, Edgar Bense. However, he further stated that he believed that these two received instructions from Sidney Phillips concerning the work that was to be done.

Edgar Bense testified that he acted as Henry's foreman on the elevator job when the latter was not there, which was about half of the time; that, during such times, he received his orders or directions as to what to do from Sidney Phillips, and that he relayed the orders to the other carpenters. It was stipulated that if Phillips wanted any of the work done in a different manner than it was being done he would tell Bense or Henry, who would then ask their men to make the desired changes.

The answer to the ultimate question, who was Renner's employer, depends upon whether Henry was an independent contractor with respect to his work on the elevator. If he was, Renner and the other carpenters were his employees. If he was not, Renner, and Henry as well, were employed by Randolph Service Company. Whether one in Henry's position is an employee or independent contractor is often difficult to determine because some of the characteristics of each relationship may be present. No rule has been adopted by this court to be applied to the facts of all cases; the impracticability of attempting to formulate such a rule has been pointed out. Lawrence v. Industrial Comm., 391 Ill. 80, 62 N.E.2d 686; Postal Telegraph Sales Corp. v. Industrial Comm., 377...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
27 cases
  • Roberson v. Industrial Com'n
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 22, 2007
    ...fact-specific nature of the inquiry. No rule has been, or could be, adopted to govern all cases in this area. Henry v. Industrial Comm'n, 412 Ill. 279, 282, 106 N.E.2d 185 (1952). Instead, we have listed various factors that help determine when a person is an employee: whether the employer ......
  • Kirkwood v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • February 3, 1981
    ...status of employee and independent contractor. (Bauer v. Industrial Com. (1972), 51 Ill.2d 169, 282 N.E.2d 448; Henry v. Industrial Com. (1952), 412 Ill. 279, 106 N.E.2d 185; Immaculate Conception Church v. Industrial Com. (1947), 395 Ill. 615, 71 N.E.2d 70; Kehrer v. Industrial Com. (1937)......
  • Freeman v. Augustine's Inc.
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Illinois
    • March 2, 1977
    ...117, 171 N.E.2d 60.) The test for whether or not a question is one of law or fact in such cases was set forth in Henry v. Industrial Com. (1952), 412 Ill. 279, 106 N.E.2d 185. At page 284, 106 N.E.2d at page 188 we stated: 'If the undisputed facts upon any issue permit more than one reasona......
  • Bob Neal Pontiac-Toyota, Inc. v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1982
    ...Com. (1974), 58 Ill.2d 155, 157, 317 N.E.2d 522; Henn v. Industrial Com. (1954), 3 Ill.2d 325, 121 N.E.2d 492; Henry v. Industrial Com. (1952), 412 Ill. 279, 284, 106 N.E.2d 185; Lawrence v. Industrial Com. (1945), 391 Ill. 80, 85, 62 N.E.2d Among the various factors that should be consider......
  • Get Started for Free