Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 22 November 1968
• Docket Number: No. 41327,41327
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Parties: HIRAM WALKER & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Elmer Radosavlyev, Appellee.)

Page 179

244 N.E.2d 179

41 Ill.2d 429

HIRAM WALKER & SONS, INC., Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Elmer Radosavlyev, Appellee.)

No. 41327.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Nov. 22, 1968.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 28, 1969.

Miller, Westervelt & Johnson, Peoria (David A. Nicoll and Robert D. Jackson, Peoria, of counsel) for appellant.

Harold N. O'Hara, Peoria, for appellee.

SCHAEFER, Justice.

The Industrial Commission affirmed the decision of an arbitrator which awarded the claimant, Elmer Radosavlyev, $51 per week for a period of 47 1/2 weeks for the permanent and complete loss of the use of his right hand to the extent of 25% Thereof. On Certiorari in the circuit court of Peoria County, the employer, Hiram Walker & Sons, Inc., asserted that the claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. The circuit court granted the claimant's motion to quash the writ of Certiorari, and the employer has appealed.

The claimant had worked for the employer for 24 years. He customarily drove to work and parked in the company parking lot, and he ordinarily punched the time clock between 6:10 and 6:20 each morning, although he was not due to begin work until 7:00 o'clock. On the morning of March 23, 1965, he arrived at the lot shortly after 6:00 A.M. After he parked his car, he walked about 15 feet and then slipped and fell, severely injuring his hand. There had been sleet and snow on the previous night and the parking lot was covered with ice and snow. After his fall he proceeded to Elsie's Cafe, which was about a block away in the opposite direction from the main gate of the plant. From there he was taken to the hospital.

In numerous decisions it has been held that an employer is responsible for the maintenance and control of a parking lot that he provides for the use of his employees, and that an injury incurred by an employee while on the lot, within a reasonable time before or after work, arises out of and in the course of his employment. (Chmelik v. Vana, 31 Ill.2d 272, 201 N.E.2d 434; De Hoyos v. Industrial Comm. 26 Ill.2d 110, 185 N.E.2d 885.) What was said in Chmelik v. Vana is applicable here: 'the parking lot was provided and used as an incident of the employment. The lot was used as an adjunct of the employer's plant, it was furnished and maintained by the employer to facilitate arrival and departure from work, and it was contemplated that employees would use the lot in going to and from their employment.' 31 Ill.2d at 279, 201 N.E.2d 439.

The employer, however, contends that the injury in this case did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant's employment 'because he was going to a private restaurant to eat his breakfast, approximately an hour before he was to commence work.' The claimant testified that when he fell he was going toward the main gate of the plant and that he did not decide to go to Elsie's Cafe until after he fell. He also testified that he usually ate breakfast at home, and not at Elsie's Cafe. He admitted, however, that he had told the employer's assistant manager of safety and plant inspection that he was on his way to Elsie's Cafe, where he often had breakfast, at the time of his fall. Another witness testified that he had seen the plaintiff in Elsie's Cafe three or four mornings a week at about 6:00 A.M. within a period of two months prior to March 23.

We are of the opinion that the Commission and the circuit court correctly held that the claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. He fell at about the time at which he had customarily checked in for work during his 24 years as an employee. On that morning, as on other mornings, he had parked in the company lot intending to leave his car there throughout the working day. His presence in the lot was due entirely to his employment, and the risks to which he was there exposed because of the icy surface did not depend upon whether he went directly into the plant or detoured briefly to get breakfast. In the absence of evidence that the condition of the lot would have been remedied between the time of the claimant's arrival and the time that he was due to start work, neither the precise time of his arrival nor his immediate destination was relevant to the risk created by the condition of the parking lot.

The judgment of the circuit court of Peoria County is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

KLINGBIEL, Justice (dissenting):

I cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the court. In my opinion it is preposterous to say a man is in the course of his employment when he is on his way to a cafe for breakfast an hour before he is due to report for work. The mere fact that he parked his car in the company lot has little bearing on the nature of his activity at the time. It is clear that he left it there at that hour of the day solely for his own convenience, whatever the case might have been later had he been on...