Quaker Oats Co. v. Industrial Commission

• Decision Date: 23 March 1953
• Docket Number: No. 32421,32421
• Citation: 414 Ill. 326,111 N.E.2d 351
• Parties: QUAKER OATS CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

Page 351

111 N.E.2d 351

414 Ill. 326

QUAKER OATS CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 32421.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

March 23, 1953.

Jerome J. Downey, and Robert C. Bourland, Jr., both of Rockford, for plaintiff in error.

John H. Page, of Rockford, for defendant in error.

DAILY, Justice.

Robert W. Huston, plaintiff in error, filed his application for adjustment of claim with the Industrial Commission, charging that he was entitled to workmen's compensation benefits from his employer, Quaker Oats Company, for the loss of his left leg. After hearing, the arbitrator awarded plaintiff in error 55 weeks temporary total disability, 190 weeks for loss of the use of his left leg by reason of amputation, $1470.10 for necessary medical and hospital expense, and directed defendant in error to furnish him with an artificial leg. On review, the Industrial Commission sustained the award of the arbitrator. However, its decision was reversed by the circuit court of Winnebago County, after hearing on writ of certiorari. The cause is here for further review on writ of error granted by this court.

The record discloses that Huston was first employed by defendant in error in June, 1946, at which time he was 28 years old and apparently in good health. His duties were to operate a boxing machine that filled cardboard cartons with 48 one-pound cans of dog food. The operation of the machine required him to stand for eight to ten hours a day in such a manner that his weight rested on the ball of his left foot. About four months after he started to work, Huston complained of aching feet and legs and consulted the plant nurse, who suggested that he treat himself with hot foot baths. The nurse testified that his calls and complaints continued during the whole period of his employment, averaging about four a month.

On occasion, beginning in July, 1949, and more particularly on August 4 and 5 of that year, the boxing machine went out of adjustment from time to time in such a manner that cans would drop to the floor, and in so doing some would fall on Huston's left foot. He testified that the falling cans hurt him, although they caused no visible cut or bruise, and that, in some instances, he stopped work, took off his shoe and rubbed his foot until the pain eased. Subsequent to August 5, the machine would malfunction once or twice a week, and very often cans would drop on claimant's foot. Huston complained to the foreman about the faulty operation of the machine and about the cans striking his foot but was told nothing could be done about it at the time because of their six-days-a-week work schedule. In the early part of September, an attempt was made to fix the machine but the faulty operation continued thereafter and cans were still dropped on Huston's foot, the last such occasion being on December 28, 1949.

During one of Huston's calls to the nurse in September, 1949, she sent him to the company doctor who examined his legs and feet, advised him that he had no compensable condition and to see his own doctor. Neither the nurse nor the doctor were told about the recurring incidents of the falling cans. Huston had, in fact, been seeing his family doctor about his legs and feet since April, 1949, and in the latter part of the year was being treated for a fungus infection on his left little toe which become ulcerated early in December. His complaint was such, at the time, that he consulted several doctors during that month, one of whom finally diagnosed his malady as Buerger's disease. A specialist was consulted early in January, 1950, and he recommended immediate hospitalization. In the hospital efforts were made to restore circulation to the lower left leg but they proved unsuccessful and the leg was amputated three to six inches below the knee. When the leg failed to heal, a second amputation was performed just below the knee. It, too, was unsuccessful and was followed by a third amputation, just above the knee, which healed properly. Medical examination at the time of the last amputation disclosed that the popliteal artery was completely occluded at about knee level, thus shutting off the blood supply to the lower parts of the extremity. Following Huston's hospitalization a dispute arose as to his employer's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act and has culminated in this action.

Both parties concede that Huston was afflicted with Buerger's disease prior to, and during the time the cans fell on his foot, and that the falling cans did not cause the disease. However, it is Huston's contention that the injuries suffered to his foot from the blows of the falling cans, aggravated and accelerated the pre-existing condition. In this respect both parties also recognize that aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing disease is an injury which is compensable under the statute, if caused by some accident occurring in the course of employment. Corn Products Refining Co. v. Industrial Comm., 402 Ill. 250, 83 N.E.2d 732; Fittro v. Industrial Comm., 377 Ill. 532, 37 N.E.2d 161; Powers Storage Co. v. Industrial Comm., 340 Ill. 498, 173 N.E. 70; Peoria Ry. Terminal Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 352, 116 N.E. 651. It is the rule of these cases that where there is a pre-existing disease, the evidence must show an aggravation or acceleration of the disease by some accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the claimant's employment. In this case, defendant in error first contends that the claimant-plaintiff in error has failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, (1) that he sustained an accidental injury in the course of his employment, or (2) the causative relation between the alleged injury and the aggravation and acceleration of the pre-existing disease.

In reversing the decision of the Industrial Commission, the circuit court reached the conclusion that the evidence showed neither an accident nor an injury to the claimant. In saying that no accident occurred, the court, in a memorandum decision, rationalizes as follows: 'After the first few times that the machine broke and the cans fell on the foot of the Petitioner, it cannot be said that further breakdowns and dropping of cans from the machine on the foot of the Petitioner, was accidental. It cannot be said that such an incident was unforeseen. Rather, it seems it could readily be foreseen that the continued operation of the machine without its being adequately and properly repaired, would lead to just the situation that Petitioner complains of, that the result of the operation of the machine and the throwing of cans on the foot of the Petitioner could be foreseen and, therefore, was not accidental.' We do not agree with such a conclusion. In Fittro v. Industrial Comm., 377 Ill. 532, 37 N.E.2d 161, and in Matthiessen & Hegeler Zinc Co. v. Industrial Board, 284 Ill. 378, 120 N.E. 249 this court stated that an injury is accidental, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, which occurs in the course of employment unexpectedly and without the affirmative act or design of the employee. It is something which is unexpected and unforeseen by the person to whom it happens. There is no evidence or claim here that the machine operated improperly as the result of any affirmative act or design of the claimant and, considering the nature of the machine being operated, we believe that the fitful breakdowns must be said to have been unexpected. The evidence shows that the machine was a fully mechanical device which the claimant operated by levers. The malfunctionings which occurred were at irregular intervals and came without warning, and most of the time the machine functioned normally. There was no way of foreseeing the exact moment when the machine would malfunction, thus we believe that the breakdowns must be held to have been accidental within the meaning of the statute. To adopt the view of the circuit court and to hold that the injury to the claimant was a foreseen result, and thus not accidental, is tantamount to charging the employer with an intentional injury of the claimant, as well as to indirectly suggest that the claimant allowed an injury to be inflicted upon himself. Such a result also injects a doctrine of foreseeability into the Workmen's Compensation Act, to an extent that finds no basis in the policies of the act or in the decisions of this court construing it.

Even if the conclusion of the circuit court were to be accepted as true, we believe it is overcome by the facts of the case. The evidence shows that a mechanic supposedly repaired and adjusted the machine about two months after its irregular operation had started. When a defect in a mechanical device is considered to have been repaired, the fact that the defect reappears cannot be said to have been expected or foreseen. Another breakdown is a possibility, of course but, again, the exact moment of the recurrence cannot be foreseen and comes unexpectedly. Further, we think the circuit court in error when it broadly stated that the result the claimant now complains of could be foreseen. Such reasoning ignores that claimant was suffering from Buerger's disease when the incidents in his employment occurred, which fact, through no fault of his own, was unknown to the claimant. It cannot be said that aggravation or acceleration of the disease could be foreseen, when its very presence was unknown to anybody. From our consideration of the facts in the record, it is our judgment that the falling of the cans on claimant's foot was accidental, within the meaning contemplated by the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Next to be determined are the interrelated issues of whether the claimant suffered an injury and whether there was a causal connection between the injury and the aggravation and acceleration of Buerger's disease in the claimant. It was the opinion of the circuit court that the medical testimony was that injury might or could cause an aggravation of the disease, however...