Munn v. Indus. Bd.

• Court: Illinois Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: FARMER
• Citation: Munn v. Indus. Bd., 274 Ill. 70, 113 N.E. 110 (Ill. 1916)
• Decision Date: 22 June 1916
• Docket Number: No. 10630.,10630.
• Parties: MUNN et al. v. INDUSTRIAL BOARD.

274 Ill. 70

113 N.E. 110

MUNN et al.

v.INDUSTRIAL BOARD.

No. 10630.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1916.

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; John P. McGoorty, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Alma M. Casparson to obtain compensation for the death of her husband, Conrad Casparson, opposed by Carrie L. Munn and others, the employers. Compensation was awarded, the employers brought certiorari, and to the review the judgment affirming the award of the Industrial Board, the employers bring error. Judgment affirmed.Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, of Chicago (Walter Bachrach, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiffs in error.

Huttmann, Cloyes, Netherton & Carr, of Chicago (Claude O. Netherton, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

FARMER, J.

Carrie L. Munn was the owner of a building located at 172 West Washington street, in the city of Chicago. F. S. Oliver and Andrew Kuby, doing business under the firm name of Oliver & Co., were employed by her, as her agents, to take charge of the rent, management, and upkeep of the building. There was an elevator in the building operated for the accommodation of tenants. Conrad Casparson was employed to operate the elevator, fire the boilers in the building, and keep the hall and stairways in the building swept clean. The hours of his employment were from 7 in the morning to 6 in the evening. On November 10, 1914, about 7 o'clock in the evening, a fire occurred in the basement of the building, where the boilers were located and the coal stored for firing them. Casparson had not left the premises and he attempted to extinguish the fire. In doing so he was overcome by fumes or smoke, or both, collapsed and was carried out of the building, where in a short time he recovered sufficiently to re-enter the basement and move or adjust some boxes therein, after which he went to his home, where he died early the next morning from the effects of inhaling poisonous gases in the boiler room. A committee of arbitration, selected under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, heard the case and awarded the administratrix, Alma M. Casparson, $3,500, to be paid in installments of $36.84 per month, beginning the 10th day of November, 1914. On petition of the owner of the building and her agents the award of the committee of arbitration was reviewed by the Industrial Board, and it was there affirmed. The case was then removed, on the petition of Carrie L. Munn and Oliver & Co., to the circuit court of Cook county by writ of certiorari. That court affirmed the decision and award of the IndustrialBoard, and the case is brought to this court for review by writ of error.

It is the contention of plaintiffs in error that the fire occurred in the boiler room from film scraps of a highly inflammable character, which accumulated in the rooms of the Standard Film Exchange, one of the tenants in the building, and that said film scraps were placed at the door of the film company's rooms for removal by Casparson, who received 50 cents per week from the film company for that service. It is contended Casparson removed the film scraps in bags to the boiler room in the basement, and that after his hours of employment for the day had ended they in some way were ignited, and that in attempting to extinguish the fire thus caused, Casparson received the injury from which he died. On these grounds it is insisted the accident did not arise out of and in the course of Casparson's employment, and the Industrial Board was therefore without jurisdiction to make the award and the circuit court erred in confirming it.

Plaintiffs in error contend that upon the facts found by the Industrial Board the injury to the deceased did not arise out of and was not received in the course of his employment. It is conceded this court is bound by the finding of facts made by the Industrial Board and can only review its decision for errors of law. Paragraph (e) of section 19 of the Workmen's Compensation Act makes the application for adjustment of claim and other documents in the nature of pleadings filed by either party, together with the decisions of the arbitrators and of the Industrial Board and the agreed statement of facts or stenographic report provided for in paragraphs (b) and (c), ‘the record of the proceedings of said board, and shall be subject to review as thereinafter provided.’ Paragraph (f) makes the decision of the board, ‘acting within its powers,’ conclusive in the absence of fraud, unless reviewed as provided in the act. One method of review provided, and the one here followed, is suing out of the circuit court a writ of certiorari to the Industrial Board. The circuit court in that proceeding has power to review only questions of lay presented by the record. The judgments and orders of the circuit court in such cases may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of error if the judge of the circuit court shall make a certificate stating the case is a proper one to be reviewed, or in case the circuit court certifies the case is not a proper one to be reviewed, the Supreme Court may, in its discretion, order a writ of error to issue. No agreed statement of facts or stenographic report is contained in the abstract, but the findings and decision of the Industrial Board are. Our powers of review are limited to a determination, from the facts recited in the decision of the Industrial Board, whether that body acted within its powers in making the award. If the injury which caused the employé's death arose out of and was received in the course of his employment, then the board acted within its powers,...