Mattoon Clear Water Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 18 February 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13098.,13098.
• Citation: 126 N.E. 168,291 Ill. 487
• Parties: MATTOON CLEAR WATER CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

291 Ill. 487

126 N.E. 168

MATTOON CLEAR WATER CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 13098.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Feb. 18, 1920.

Error to Circuit Court, Coles County; John H. Marshall, Judge.

Proceeding by Benjamin Franklin Miller, employé, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, to secure compensation for injuries sustained, opposed by the Mattoon Clear Water Company, the employer. Compensation was awarded by the Industrial Commission, which was reversed on certiorari from circuit court, and employé brings error.

Affirmed.Bryan H. Tivnen, of Mattoon (Isaac B. Craig, of Mattoon, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

Vause & Kiger, of Mattoon, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

The Mattoon Clear Water Company, defendant in error, is a corporation engaged in supplying water to the inhabitants of the city of Mattoon by the usual type of waterworksplant and system of pipe lines. In that part of the city not served by its pipe lines it supplies water to customers by hauling the water in a tank wagon and emptying it into the customer's well or cistern. Plaintiff in error was employed to haul this water at a stipulated sum a load. He furnished the team and harness, and defendant in error furnished the ordinary type of cylindrical tank wagon. On Saturday, December 12, 1914, plaintiff in error was delivering a tank of water pursuant to the orders of defendant in error, and in climbing down from his wagon to empty the tank into a cistern he slipped from the top of the tank and fell between the wagon and his horses, his back striking on the wagon tongue or doubletree hammer and his head striking either the singletree or the wagon wheel. He was rendered unconscious for a time. When he regained consciousness, he proceeded to unload the tank of water with great difficulty. In the afternoon of the same day he hauled another tank of water, and hauled some wood the following morning. During all this time he suffered great pain, and finally was compelled to leave his work. In the evening of the day following the accident he climbed on the wagon to remove the hose used for emptying the water from the tank in order to take it into the house to keep it from freezing. In doing this he fell and further injured himself. An examination of his injuries showed a fractured vertebra and other injuries to his spinal column. Since December 13, 1914, plaintiff in error has been wholly unable to do any work of any kind. The Industrial Board awarded compensation for a permanent injury. The circuit court of Coles county reviewed the decision on certiorari and quashed the record of the Industrial Board. The contentions made before the circuit court and here are that defendant in error does not come within the terms of the Compensation Act (Laws 1913, p. 335); that plaintiff in error at the time of his injury was not engaged in an extrahazardous employment; that the employment was casual; and the plaintiff in error was an independentcontractor. On the certificate of the trial judge that this cause is one proper to be reviewed by this court the cause is brought here by a writ of error.

Plaintiff in error contends that defendant in error comes within the terms of the Compensation Act because it was maintaining a structure within the meaning of the act, and because it was engaged in carriage by land, and because it was engaged in a business in which statutory and municipal ordinance regulations...