J.E. Porter Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 09 February 1922
• Docket Number: No. 14105.,14105.
• Citation: 133 N.E. 652,301 Ill. 76
• Parties: J. E. PORTER CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

301 Ill. 76

133 N.E. 652

J. E. PORTER CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 14105.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Dec. 22, 1921.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 9, 1922.

Error to Circuit Court, La Salle County; Edgar Eldredge, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by George W. Yentzer for compensation for injuries, opposed by the J. E. Porter Company. The circuit court confirmed the award, and the J. E. Porter Company brings error.

Affirmed.

McDougall, Chapman & Bayne, of Ottawa, for plaintiff in error.

Lester H. Strawn, of Ottawa, for defendant in error.

STONE, C. J.

George W. Yentzer, defendant in error, was employed by plaintiff in error as a traveling salesman, and on October 13, 1917, was injured by an automobile while attempting to board a street car on his way to the office of plaintiff in error. The Industrial Commission, on application for compensation, awarded $171.50 for hospital and surgical services, $48 per month between October 20, 1917, and August 22, 1918, and a further sum of $48 per month for 26 1/4 months for 60 per cent. loss of use of defendant in error's left leg. His salary for the year prior to the injury was $1,800. The circuit court of La Salle county confirmed the award, and the Porter Company brings the case here by writ of error.

Plaintiff in error urged before the circuit court, and urges here, the setting aside of the award on the ground that the work of defendant in error as a traveling salesman was such that he did not come under the provisions of the Compensation Act, although it is admitted that his employer was engaged in a hazardous occupation; also that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the employment.

The first contention of plaintiff in error was considered by this court in Illinois Publishing & Printing Co. v. Industrial Com., 299 Ill. 189, 132 N. E. 511, and McNaught v. Hines (No. 13861) 133 N. E. 53, where it was held that, since the amendment of the Compensation Act of 1917 (Hurd's Rev. St. 1919, c. 48, §§ 126-152i), no distinction exists between an employee doing extrahazardous work and one whose work is not extrahazardous. That decision is controlling here, and the first contention of plaintiff in error cannot obtain.

It is contended that the injury did not arise out of or in the course of the employment of defendant in error. The testimony of defendant in error is that on October 13, 1917, he had been in Proria and Streator, Ill., on the business of his employer and arrived at Ottawa, his home, about 11:40 a. m. on an interurban electric car. As the car passed near to his house, in the southern part of the city, he stopped there for his lunch and then started to walk to the factory, which is in the northeast part of the city. He states that his purpose in going to the factory was to settle up for the week, turn in his expense account, collect his salary, and get instructions for the following week. It appears that there is a bridge spanning the Illinois river between his home and the business section of the city; that this bridge is crossed by a street car track; that when he reached the middle of the bridge a street car came from the southeast, which he signaled to stop; that while this was not the usual stopping place the car did stop for him, and while crossing from the sidewalk to board the car he was struck by an automobile and seriously injured.

Plaintiff in error contends that the above facts, even if proven, do not show that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. There is no fixed rule for determining what in a given case constitutes a risk of the employment. The facts, however, must show that the accident in which the injury is received had its origin in some risk of the employment. City of Chicago v. Industrial Com., 292 Ill. 406, 127 N. E. 49;United Disposal & Recovery Co. v. Industrial Com., 291 Ill. 480, 126 N. E. 183. In the last case cited the general rule...