Pearce v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 22 October 1921
• Docket Number: No. 14001.,14001.
• Citation: 299 Ill. 161,132 N.E. 440
• Parties: PEARCE v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

299 Ill. 161

132 N.E. 440

PEARCE

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 14001.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 22, 1921.

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

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Peter Peterson, employee, opposed by Frank Pearce. An award of the Industrial Commission, affirming the arbitrator's award, was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Reversed, and award set aside.

John A. Bloomingston, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Morris Kompel, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

CARTER, J.

Peter Peterson filed a claim for compensation, alleging that he received an injury arising out of his employment with plaintiff in error June 12, 1918. His claim was allowed by the arbitrator, and on review the arbitrator's finding was approved by the Industrial Commission. The circuit court of Cook county affirmed the finding of the commission, and this writ of error has been sued out to review the proceedings.

Peterson was a janitor and all-round handy man in the Ewart Building, at 118 North Jefferson street, Chicago, and had been so employed for about a year previous to the occurrence in question. It is agreed by both parties that they were under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, p. 335) on the day of the injury, but plaintiff in error denies that the said injury arose out of defendant in error's employment. The record shows without contradiction that a special arrangement was made by the defendant in error, the chief engineer of the building and his assistant, whereby, instead of bringing cold lunches, they each contributed to the expense of a warm lunch, and one of the three would go out and purchase groceries, meat, and whatever else they wished for lunch, and it would be cooked in the building. The testimony of the assistant engineer, Mannik, was to the effect that before he was employed at the Ewart Building he had worked in another manufacturing building, where a similar arrangement had been made by some of the employees, and that after he came to work in the Ewart Building he suggested this plan to the chief engineer, and they talked it over together, and also discussed it with the defendant in error, whose employment began about a month after Mannik was hired, and the three decided to follow the plan. Mannik himself did the cooking, and Peterson usually was the one to go after the groceries and meat, after getting suggestions from the chief engineeror Mannik as to what food should be obtained for that certain day. Sometimes the chief engineer or Mannik went out after the food, but usually Peterson was sent. On the day of the injury, Peterson, under this arrangement, went to the meat market and other places to obtain supplies for the noon meal, and on his way back fell down, but is unable to tell what caused the fall. His left leg or hip was seriously injured, and he was taken, at the suggestion of the chief engineer, to the Cook County Hospital, and later, when his recovery was found to be somewhat slow, he was taken to the Oak Forest Hospital (another county institution), where he remained for three months.

Defendant in error testified that on the day he was injured the chief engineer, Wall, told him about 11 o'clock to go and get meat and other supplies for dinner, stating that he (Wall) would attend to the elevator while defendant in error was gone. It would appear that the regular elevator man usually took his lunch at 11:30 a. m., and that while he was gone defendant in error ran the elevator. The chief engineer attended to the hiring of his assistant and of defendant in error, and had charge of the building and the employees during the most of the time. Plaintiff in error,...