Hines v. Indus. Comm'n
Decision Date | 21 December 1920 |
Docket Number | No. 13484.,13484. |
Citation | 295 Ill. 231,129 N.E. 175 |
Parties | HINES, Director General of Railroads, v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, La Salle County; Edgar Eldredge, Judge.
Proceedings for compensation, under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 48, §§ 126-152i), by Sarah Mahon, administratrix, for death of Samuel Mahon, the employee, opposed by Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, the employer. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Commission, the award affirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.
Judgment of the circuit court reversed, and cause remanded, with directions to quash the record of the commission.
J. A. Connell, of Chicago, H. L. Richolson, of Ottawa, and Clayton L. Powell, of Chicago (Bruce Scott, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Edwin M. St. John, of Rockford, and Robert E. Larkin, of Streator, for defendant in error.
On August 24, 1918, Samuel Mahon was killed while in the employ of Walker D. Hines, Director General of Railroads, operating the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroad. His administratrix, Sarah Mahon, his widow, filed a claim for compensation. The arbitrator awarded compensation in the amount of $9.58 for a period of 415 weeks and $9.30 for one week. The Industrial Commission affirmed the award. The circuit court of La Salle county affirmed the award of the commission after quashing the writ of certiorari. This court granted a writ of error.
The only question presented for decision is whether or not the deceased was engaged in interstate commerce at the time he was killed in his employment with the plaintiff in error. Counsel for defendant in the make the argument that the evidence in the record tends to show that the deceased, at the time he was injured, was engaged in repairing a wagon bridge owned and maintained by plaintiff in error, and that that bridge was not used for interstate commerce but solely for intrastate commerce. They further argue that although the evidence, or some of it, may also tend to show that the deceased was engaged in repairing a railroad bridge for plaintiff in error which was used for both interstate and intrastate commerce, yet the evidence in the record is in such a condition that it is purely a question of fact as to which occupation he was engaged in, and that the finding of the commission, which is affirmed by the circuit court, should be sustained for that reason.
The record plainly and unequivocally shows the following facts: The Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company owned and operated a structure across the river at Rockford generally referred to as one structure-the bridge, or the railroad bridge of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company. The structure, in fact, consists of two bridges built side by side on separate sets of piling. This structure was at first but a single bridge, used for a number of years by the railroad company as a railroad bridge, only. Later a wagon bridge was built and maintained by the railroad companybeside and adjoining the railroad bridge. The latter was used for wagons and other vehicles drawn by horses to cross the river back and forth, and its sole use was for intrastate commerce and travel. The floors of the two bridges came very close together-perhaps touched each other-and there was only about a half inch or an inch difference in the height of the floors of the two...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fenstermacher v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway Company
... ... C ... A. 490, 215 F. 285, 232 F. 1020, 245 U.S. 681, 62 L.Ed. 544; ... Yarde v. Hines, 209 Mo.App. 547, 24 A. L. R. 643; ... Williams v. Schaff, 282 Mo. 497; 1 Robt. Fed. Liab ... ...
-
Gray v. Kurn
... ... Co. v. Martin, 262 F. 241; Sweany v. Wab. Ry ... Co., 229 App. 393, 80 S.W.2d 216; Hines v ... Industrial Comm., 129 N.E. 175; So. Ry. Co. v ... Puckett, 244 U.S. 571, 61 L.Ed ... ...
-
Garrison v. Thompson
... ... 374; Berry v. St. L.-S. F ... Ry. Co., 324 Mo. 775, 26 S.W. 988; Kalashian v ... Hines, 177 N.W. 603; McGaughey v. Hines, 235 ... S.W. 742; Makino v. S. P. & S. Ry. Co., 63 P.2d ... ...
-
Sutherland v. Norfolk Southern Ry. Co., 1-04-1631.
...injuries to the exclusion of the Workers' Compensation Act (820 ILCS 305/1 et seq. (West 2002)). See, e.g., Hines v. Industrial Comm'n, 295 Ill. 231, 234, 129 N.E. 175, 176 (1920) ("Where an injury occurs to an employee while engaged in interstate commerce there is no choice of remedy. The ......