De Hoyos v. Industrial Commission
| Decision Date | 28 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 37075,37075 |
| Citation | 185 N.E.2d 885,26 Ill.2d 110 |
| Parties | Mauro De HOYOS, Defendant, in Error, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Moline Malleable Iron Company of St. Charles, Illinois, Plaintiff in Error.) |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
Henry L. Kane and Arthur O. Kane, Chicago (Samuel J. Doy, Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.
Reid, Ochsenschlager, Murphy & Hupp, Aurora (William C. Murphy and William J. Foote, Aurora, of counsel), for defendant in error.
Mauro De Hoyos filed an application for adjustment of claim with the Industrial Commission claiming compensation for injuries sustained while he was an employee of Moline Malleable Iron Company of St. Charles, Illinois. The arbitrator entered an order finding that Mauro De Hoyos sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. The Industrial Commission set aside the award and found that the employee failed to prove that he sustained accidental injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment The circuit court of Kane County reversed the finding of the Industrial Commission and granted an award to the claimant.
Upon writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County, the case is now before us. It is the contention of the employer that the decision of the Commission was one of fact and should not have been disturbed by the circuit court, and that there is no basis in law for an award to the employee.
It appears that Mauro De Hoyos was injured on December 8, 1958. He testified that he drove his automobile to work and parked it in a parking lot where other employees' cars were parked. He got out of his car and walked 15 to 20 feet when he slipped and fell on his knee while on the way to the plant entrance. Two employees of employer helped him up and carried him to the plant from whence he was removed to a hospital where X-rays were taken and his right leg placed in a cast. At the time of the hearing his knee was still sore and would 'buckle' on him. The testimony of the claimant further reveals that the parking lot was provided by the employer and was regularly used by its employees. It had been snowing and there was ice under the snow on the parking lot. The place where he slipped and fell was on the parking lot. Although he testified that the parking lot was owned by Moline Malleable and that he had been parking in that lot for twelve years, cross-examination revealed that the employee did not know, as a matter of fact, whether the employer owned the parking lot or not. The only other testimony as to how the accident happened was provided by Larry Hampel who, testifying for the employer, stated that he saw the employee, De Hoyos, sitting on the ground. He took pictures of the location where De Hoyos fell and identified a man in the photograph received in evidence as standing in what he thought was approximately the place where he first saw De Hoyos. Cross-examination of Hampel revealed that the ground was covered with snow and ice; that the parking lot is customarily used by the employees of Moline Malleable; that there are three routes which De Hoyos could have used from where he parked his car to reach the plant, and that the employee was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wiley Mfg. Co. v. Wilson
...91 Idaho 418, 422 P.2d 616, 617 (1967); Chmelik v. Vana, 31 Ill.2d 272, 201 N.E.2d 434, 438-39 (1964); DeHoyos v. Industrial Commission, 26 Ill.2d 110, 185 N.E.2d 885, 887 (1962); Harlan Appalachian Regional Hospital v. Taylor, 424 S.W.2d 580, 581 (Ky.1968); Connolly v. Miron, 353 Mass. 654......
-
Chmelik v. Vana
...v. Farnsworth, 336 Ill.App. 417, 84 N.E.2d 330; Cunningham v. Metzger, 258 Ill.App. 150.) More recently, in both DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm., 26 Ill.2d 110, 185 N.E.2d 885, and Carr v. Industrial Comm., 26 Ill.2d 347, 186 N.E.2d 280, we have aligned ourselves with those jurisdictions holdin......
-
Dukich v. Ill. Workers' Comp. Comm'n
...parking lot was compensable); Carr v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Ill. 2d 347, 186 N.E.2d 280 (1962) (same); De Hoyos v. Industrial Comm'n, 26 Ill. 2d 110, 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (same); Caterpillar Tractor Co., 129 Ill. 2d at 62, 133 Ill.Dec. 454, 541 N.E.2d 665 (suggesting that an injury is caus......
-
Rinke v. Bank of America, 93,868.
...to or from work when ... the injury occurred on property owned, leased, or maintained by the employer."); DeHoyos v. Industrial Comm., 26 Ill.2d 110, 185 N.E.2d 885 (1962) (for purposes of the premises rule, "whether the employer owns or does not own the parking lot is immaterial so long as......