Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Commission

Decision Date21 November 1979
Docket NumberNo. 51831,51831
Citation399 N.E.2d 594,35 Ill.Dec. 528,78 Ill.2d 231
Parties, 35 Ill.Dec. 528 SEARS, ROEBUCK & COMPANY, Appellant, v. The INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Jeanette Stock, Appellee).
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

Rooks, Pitts, Fullagar & Poust, Chicago (Daniel P. Socha and Ian M. Sherman, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

Eugene P. Meegan, Chicago, for appellee.

GOLDENHERSH, Chief Justice:

An arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that Joseph S. Stock, deceased, husband of the petitioner, Jeanette Stock, died as the result of accidental injuries which arose out of and in the course of his employment by respondent, Sears, Roebuck & Company, and awarded workmen's compensation under the provisions of section 7 of the Workmen's Compensation Act. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1975, ch. 48, par. 138.7(a), (f).) On review, without taking additional evidence, the Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator's decision. On certiorari the circuit court of Cook County confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission and respondent appealed. 58 Ill.2d R. 302(a).

The testimony shows that on November 26, 1975, the decedent was 53 years of age and was employed by respondent as an "order picker" who gathered merchandise to fill customer orders. Shortly after 1 p. m. he was found lying on the floor several feet away from a parked forklift truck which held 10 ladders which the decedent had apparently "picked" in the course of his work. The truck was not equipped with a "dead man's brake." The deceased was lying to the left of the forklift truck, and it is undisputed that the driver normally alights from such a truck from the left. It is also undisputed that he had suffered a fracture of the skull, which caused his death.

Respondent contends that "the Industrial Commission's determination that the injury incurred by the decedent due to an unexplained idiopathic fall on a level, smooth floor arose out of his employment is legally erroneous." It argues that "there is no evidence that the forklift truck played any role in the injury suffered by the employee" and that at the time of the fall the deceased may have been doing nothing, or something unrelated to his work. It argues that the facts on which the decision of the Industrial Commission was based are not in dispute and the question for this court is therefore one of law. We do not agree. Apposite here is our statement that "We may not disregard the decision of the Commission merely because the facts here are undisputed. It is well within the province of the Commission to draw inferences from undisputed facts to determine whether injury resulted from conduct which unreasonably or unnecessarily increased the risks of injury which attend such employment. (Jewel Companies, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1974), 57 Ill.2d 38, 43, 310 N.E.2d 12; Union Starch v. Industrial Com. (1974), 56 Ill.2d 272, 275, 307 N.E.2d 118.) When the Commission's decision is based upon such permissible inferences, we will disturb it only if it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Malco, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 65 Ill.2d 426, 430-31, 3 Ill.Dec. 448, 358 N.E.2d 1133." (Yost v. Industrial Com. (1979), 76 Ill.2d 548, 551, 31 Ill.Dec. 812, 813, 394 N.E.2d 1189, 1190.) The decision of the Commission that decedent's death resulted from an accident which occurred in the course of his employment is not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

Respondent contends that the decedent's injuries did not arise out of his employment, but resulted from physical problems caused by his being ill, and argues that the arbitrator erroneously excluded testimony that on the day of his death the decedent "looked sick," "didn't look like he was feeling too...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • INST. OF TECH. RES. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • May 15, 2000
    ...compensable, however, where conditions of the employment increase the risk of injury. See, e.g., Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 78 Ill.2d 231, 35 Ill.Dec. 528, 399 N.E.2d 594 (1979) (fall from fork lift); Rysdon Products Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 34 Ill.2d 326, 215 N.E.2d 261 (1......
  • ILL. CONSOL. TEL. CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COM'N
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • June 15, 2000
    ...fit arose out of employment because duties required claimant to stand next to opening); Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 78 Ill.2d 231, 35 Ill.Dec. 528, 399 N.E.2d 594 (1979) (fall from forklift); Rockford Hotel Co. v. Industrial Comm'n, 300 Ill. 87, 132 N.E. 759 (1921) (fall into......
  • Brady v. Industrial Commission
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • November 28, 1989
    ...will not be disturbed on review unless it is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1979), 78 Ill.2d 231, 35 Ill.Dec. 528, 399 N.E.2d 594); if the undisputed facts are susceptible of but a single inference, then the issue becomes one of l......
  • Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Com'n
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • June 19, 1989
    ...(Orsini v. Industrial Comm'n (1987), 117 Ill.2d 38, 44, 109 Ill.Dec. 166, 509 N.E.2d 1005; Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Comm'n (1979), 78 Ill.2d 231, 233, 35 Ill.Dec. 528, 399 N.E.2d 594.) However, if the undisputed facts are susceptible of but a single inference, then the issue becom......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT