Meredosia Levee & Drainage Dist. v. Indus. Comm'n of Illinois
| Decision Date | 21 October 1918 |
| Docket Number | No. 12093.,12093. |
| Citation | 120 N.E. 516,285 Ill. 68 |
| Parties | MEREDOSIA LEVEE & DRAINAGE DIST. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS et al. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Circuit Court, Bureau County; Joe A. Davis, Judge.
Proceeding by Clarence Glenn Renner to recover compensation for personal injuries under the Workmen's Compensation Act, opposed by the Meredosia Levee & Drainage District, the employer. From a judgment of the circuit court, confirming an award made by the Industrial Commission, the employer brings error. Reversed and remanded.
Ralph Rosen and H. L. Howard, both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Charles C. McMahon, of Fulton, for defendant in error.
The circuit court of Bureau county rendered a judgment confirming the award made by the Industrial Board to Clarence Glenn Renner, defendant in error, of $12 per week for a period of 13 weeks for a temporary total disability, and $12 per week for a period of 80 weeks for loss of the thumb and ring finger of the right hand, as a result of injuries sustained September 28, 1916. This writ of error has been sued out to review the judgment of the circuit court.
Defendant in error and his father for a number of years prior to September 28, 1916, were the owners of a dredging machine, which they used and operated for various persons in different districts in digging and cleaning out ditches and doing similar work. They completed a contract with the Meredosia Levee & Drainage District on August 17, 1916. At that time the father retired from the business and defendant in error took it over. During the latter part of that month the ditch, which the father and son had just completed, became clogged and filled with sand and dirt, due to local floods, and the commissioners of the drainage district, desiring to have the sand and dirt removed, negotiated with defendant in error for the use of his dredging machine and his helpers in removing the same. Defendant in error contracted with the drainage district to do this work for $2.50 per hour, or $25 per day of 10 hours. No agreement was made as to the number of yards of earth to be removed, or that the work was to be done in a specified time. Defendant in error was to be paid for the use of his dredging machine, for his own time and the time of two helpers, at the rate of $25 per day, and he was to furnish gasoline for the engine and whatever else was necessary to properly do the work. He began working under this contract on August 30, 1916. There were no written specifications as to how the work was to be done, but, under the direction of the commissioners, Andrew Dolan, one of the commissionersfor the district, was present to watch and inspect the work being done, and to see that it was done as the district desired, to tell defendant in error and his men where the work was to commence and where it was to end, how deep it was to be dug, and where the earth was to be deposited on the spoil banks. Dolan had the right to discharge defendant in error, or either of his helpers, if the work was not being done as the district desired, or, as one of the commissioners stated in his testimony ‘if they were laying down on the job.’ For this supervision Dolan was paid by the district $3 per day.
Defendan...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burkhardt v. State
...to be considered in determining the relationship is the mode, method or basis of payment. Meredosia Levee & Drainage District v. Industrial Commission of Ill., 285 Ill. 68, 120 N.E. 516. That, however, has been given less weight than some other factors. Bernardy v. Beals, supra; 71 C.J. 471......
-
Sargent v. Clements
...75 A. L. R. 726; O'Hara v. Gaslight Co., 244 Mo. 395; McGrath v. St. Louis, 215 Mo. 211; Crenshaw v. Ullman, 113 Mo. 639; Meredosia L. & D. Dist. v. Comm., 120 N.E. 516; Beach v. Welzy, 238 N.Y. 100, 143 N.E. Litts v. Risley Lumber Co., 224 N.Y. 321, 120 N.E. 730; Western Indemnity Co. v. P......
-
Gotchy v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
... ... Ins. Fund (Penn.) 105 A. 90; Meredosin Levee & Drainage Dist. v. Indus. Commission of Ill ... ...
-
Immaculate Conception Church v. Indus. Comm'n
...in respect to the details of the work. Nelson Bros. & Co. v. Industrial Comm., 330 Ill. 27, 161 N.E. 113;Meredosia Levee & Drainage Dist. v. Industrial Comm., 285 Ill. 68, 120 N.E. 516. If the person for whom the work is being done retains the right to control the details and the manner and......