Morris & Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FARMER
• Citation: Morris & Co. v. Indus. Bd. of Illinois, 284 Ill. 67, 119 N.E. 944 (Ill. 1918)
• Decision Date: 20 June 1918
• Docket Number: No. 11584.,11584.
• Parties: MORRIS & CO. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

284 Ill. 67

119 N.E. 944

MORRIS & CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD OF ILLINOIS et al.

No. 11584.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 20, 1918.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Oscar M. Torrison, Judge.

Proceeding for workmen's compensation by Mrs. Michael Klein against Morris & Co. An award of the Industrial Accident Board was affirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error. Affirmed.

Cartwright, Dunn, and Cooke, JJ., dissenting.M. W. Borders, Norman G. Collins, and West & Eckhart, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, of Chicago (S. Sidney Stein, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendants in error.

FARMER, J.

This was a proceeding instituted before the Industrial Board of Illinois by defendant in error Mrs. Michael Klein against Morris & Co., plaintiff in error, to recover compensationunder the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i) for the death of her husband, Michael Klein. A hearing was had before the arbitrator, who found against plaintiff in error and in favor of Mrs. Klein. On a review by the Industrial Board, further evidence being introduced, that board also found against plaintiff in error and in Mrs. Klein's favor. By writ of certiorari the circuit court reviewed the record and affirmed the Industrial Board's award in all particulars. The trial judge entered of record a certificate that the cause, in his opinion, was not one proper to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Thereafter a writ of error was sued out of this court to review the proceedings of the trial court.

The deceased was a laborer employed by Morris & Co. at the Union Stockyards, in Chicago, having been so employed for about seven months prior to his death. It was his work to clean the floors around the tanks in the meat-boiling room in the canning department, situated on the third floor. He worked at night. On the evening of April 11, 1915, he went to work about 9 o'clock-his regular time. The gang of which he was a member worked until 4:30 o'clock the following morning. It was the custom of each employé of that department, before going to work to stop at the time office, from 125 to 150 feet from the foot of the stairway hereinafter referred to, and procure a numbered brass check by which the employé was designated. This check was retained in the employé's possession while he was on duty and was exhibited to the timekeeper when the latter made his rounds for the purpose of ascertaining what employés were at work. At the conclusion of their services in the morning the employés passed along the outside of the time office and deposited their checks in boxes or drawers provided therefor. Klein's check was No. 9209. The timekeeper testified that this check was taken out on April 11th, some time before 9 o'clock, and that when he examined the box receptacle for these checks the following morning at 4:30 this check had not been returned. The evidence tends to show that it was put into the proper receptacle between 4:30 and 4:45 on the morning of April 12th, at about the same time the checks of all the other members of the gang were turned in. No witness testified to seeing Klein after he quit work on the morning of April 12th, and no one saw him deposit his check at the time office or leave the premises of plaintiff in error. From the third floor of the ‘old beef house’ (in which the canning department was situated), there was on the outside of the building a stairway leading to the ground, about 4 feet wide and consisting of two flights. The upper flight descended some 12 feet to a landing about 8 feet wide and 4 feet long. The lower flight descended from the second floor in the opposite direction, about 14 feet to the ground. There were railings on both sides of the stairs and the stairs were in good condition and well lighted. The employés in the canning department ordinarily used these stairs in going to and from work. Plaintiff in error's plant is situated on the South Side in Chicago, about 1,000 feet from Forty-Third street and Ashland avenue. The deceased, Klein, lived on the North Side in Chicago at 1622 Vine street. In going home he took the street car at the corner of Forty-Third street and Ashland avenue and rode north to North avenue and Ashland avenue, about 7 miles. On North avenue he changed cars and rode to Vine street, somewhat more than a mile. Mrs. Klein testified that on the morning of April 12th her husband arrived at home about 10 minutes after 6, that being about his usual time to get home when he worked a full night; that when he came in his overcoat was dirty; that he called to her, and she opened the door and had to assist him in and assist in undressing him and putting him to bed; that he stated to her he ‘had fell-fell himself to death.’ A post mortem examination disclosed that he had fractured ten ribs on the right side, and that one or more of the fractured ribs had penetrated his lung, producing a condition known as emphysema. Shortly after his return home he was removed, on the advice of his physician, to a hospital, where he died April 13th as the result of the injuries in question.

There is no direct testimony by witnesses heard before the Industrial Board tending to show where and under what circumstances the injury was sustained. His wife, son-in-law, and physician testified that he told them he had fallen down the stairway at plaintiff in error's plant, heretofore described, while leaving his work. After his death a coroner's inquest was held, and the coroner's jury returned the following verdict:

‘We find from the evidence that Michael Klein died at the Norwegian Deaconess Hospital from the effects of injuries received, and from the evidence presented, we, the jury, are of the opinion that said injuries resulted from a fall down a flight of stairs at Morris & Co.'s plant at the Union Stockyards, as he was leaving his work on April 12, 1915, at about 5:30 a. m.’

Counsel for plaintiff in error earnestly insist that there is no proper evidence in the record sustaining the finding of the Industrial Board. It is claimed the testimony of the wife, son-in-law, and physician concerning the statements made to them by the deceased as to how the injury occurred are all hearsay and therefore incompetent. This position is sustained by Chicago & Alton Railroad Co. v. Industrial Board, 274 Ill. 336, 113 N. E. 629, and cases there cited.

Counsel for the defendant in error, Mrs. Klein, insist, however, that the finding of the Industrial Board was sustained and justified by the coroner's verdict, while counsel for the plaintiff in error vigorously argue that the coroner's verdict was not properly admitted in evidence. When the coroner of a county knows or is informed ‘that the dead body of any person is found or lying within his county, supposed to have come to his or her death by violence, casualty, or any undue means,’ he shall take charge, summon a jury of six men of the neighborhood and inquire into the cause and manner of the death. It is the duty of the jury to inquire how, in what manner, and by whom or what the dead body came to its death, all facts concerning the same, and all material circumstances related to or connected with the death, and make up and sign a verdict and deliver the same to the coroner, which verdict shall be entered in a record required to be supplied by the county for that purpose. If the verdict implicates any one as the unlawful slayer of deceased or as an accessory thereto, and such person is not in custody, the coroner shall apprehend and commit or cause to be apprehended and committed to jail such person, there to remain until discharged in due course of law. Hurd's Stat. 1917, c. 31. It is made the duty of the coroner to inquire into the cause of death where it is supposed to have resulted from ‘casualty’ as well as where it is supposed to have resulted from ‘violence’ or ‘any undue means.’ Webster's New International Dictionary defines ‘casualty’ to mean ‘chance, accident, contingency; also that which comes without design or without being foreseen; an accident.’ ‘Mishap,’ ‘misfortune,’ ‘disaster,’ are given as synonyms. The Standard Dictionary defines ‘casualty’ to mean ‘a fatal or serious accident; disaster; accidental death or disablement; that which occurs by chance.’ We must assume the word ‘casualty’ was understandingly used by the Legislature, and was intended to be given its usual and ordinary meaning. If it had only been intended to authorize an inquest where it was supposed the death resulted from the commission of a crime, it would have been unnecessary to add casualty to death by violence or any undue means, as those words were broad enough to cover any case where death was supposed to have resulted from the commission of a crime. Klein's death was found by the coroner's jury to have resulted from a casualty, viz. ‘a fall down a flight of stairs at Morris & Co.'s plant at the Union Stockyards, as he was leaving his work on April 12, 1915, at about 5:30 a. m.’ The statute made it the duty of the coroner to hold an inquest when informed that it was supposed Klein had come to his death by a casualty.

In United States Life Ins. Co. v. Vocke, 129 Ill. 557, 22 N. E. 467,6 L. R. A. 65, the suit was to recover on a life insurance policy. There was a provision in the policy that if the insured should die by an act of self-destruction the policy should be void. An inquest had been held to determine in what manner the deceased came to his death. The...