Sparks Milling Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 16 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13253.,13253.
• Citation: 127 N.E. 737,293 Ill. 350
• Parties: SPARKS MILLING CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

293 Ill. 350

127 N.E. 737

SPARKS MILLING CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 13253.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1920.

Error to Circuit Court, Madison County; Louis Bernreuter, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Cora J. May, executrix, to recover compensation for the death of William F. May, opposed by the Sparks Milling Company, the employer. There was an award of compensation by the Industrial Commission, which was confirmed by the circuit court, and the employer brings error.

Affirmed.

Samuel A. Harper, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Gilson Brown, of Alton, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

October 12, 1918, William F. May suffered injuries at the mill of plaintiff in error which resulted in his death. He had been employed by plaintiff in error for about 12 years. At the time of the accident he was employed as a sweeper and cleaner. It was his duty to sweep the floors and clean up the dirt and mill dust, to brush and clean the machinery, and generally to keep the entire mill and its equipment clean. The mill consisted of four floors and a cupola. On the morning of the accident he left home about 6:30, which was his usual time, and went to the mill, where he changed clothes and went to work at 7 o'clock. He talked with Sam C. Willett, second miller, about 7 o'clock, and again about 7:15. Willett saw the deceased cleaning around the machinery on the fourth floor about 7:30. On this floor there is considerable machinery, including four swinging sifters. These sifters work back and forth with sufficient force to knock a man over if he gets in their way. The south end of the room on the fourth floor is 22 feet wide. At this end there are three windows. Across the west window is a table about 3 feet high. The window sill is about a foot high, leaving about 2 feet of the lower half of the window below the table. Immediately outside this window is the platform of a fire escape, which is about on a level with the mill floor. The middle window on the south side is about 10 feet east of the window just described. Near the west window is a wheat scourer. The west sifter is about 12 feet from the west window and the sifters extend eastward; the east sifter being opposite the east window. One of the sifters extends out to within 2 or 3 feet of the edge of the middle window. There is no table and no fire escape at the middle window. The air inside the mill was usually filled with dust, and it was customary to keep all the windows open when the weather permitted.

The proof shows that the weather was clear and warm on the day of the accident, and while there is no proof that the windows were open before the accident, many witnesses testify that they found them open immediately after the accident. We think the evidence clearly warrants the finding that the windows were open at the time of the accident. When Willett last saw and talked to deceased, at 7:30 o'clock, the latter was working between the second and third sifters, which would place him practically opposite the middle window. About 8 o'clock May was found lying on the pavement, below and slightly to the east of the west window. No one saw him fall, but Fred Collins stood within 15 feet of the place where he fell. He was attracted by the sound of the body striking the pavement, and turned and saw deceased lying on his back, his head toward the mill, and about 6 feet from the wall. He was unconscious, his legs were broken, and his shoulders and face bruised. He did not regain consciousness, and made no statement. The Industrial Commission found that the injury resulting in his death arose in the course of and out of his employment and awarded compensation. On certiorari the circuit court of Madison county confirmed this award. By leave of this court this writ of error is prosecuted to review that judgment.

Only one thing is certain and clear in this case: That William F. May was found in a dying condition, lying on the pavement below the windows of the fourth floor of this mill. There may be at least three theories, any one of which will account for his death. It might have been suicide; it might have been murder; it might have been accident, and such accident may or may not have arisen out of the employment. All who saw deceased on the morning of the accident-his family and his fellow workmen-testify that he was in his usual good spirits, and that so far as was known he had no enemies. There is no evidence of suicide or murder, and therefore the presumption against the commission of a crime is sufficient to support the finding of the commission that this death resulted from accident. Humphrey v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 372, 120 N. E. 816;In re Von Ette, 223 Mass. 56, 111 N. E. 696, L. R. A. 1916D, 641;Steers v. Dumewald, 85 N. J. Law, 449, 89 Atl. 1007;State v. District Court, 138 Minn. 138, 164 N. W. 582;Bekkedal Lumber Co. v. Industrial Com., 168 Wis. 230, 169 N. W. 561. Where the evidence shows deceased to have been in good health, and there is a complete absence of evidence showing suicide, it must be presumed that the death was accidental. Wilkinson v. AEtna Ins. Co., 240 Ill. 205, 88 N. E. 550,25 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1256, 130 Am. St. Rep. 269;Wiscaless v. Hammond, Standish & Co., 201 Mich. 192, 166 N. W. 993.

[4] We think it cannot be seriously contended that the injury causing this death did not arise in the course of the employment. The only serious question presented is whether or not the injury arose out of the employment, and this question is not without its difficulty. An injury arises out of the employment, within the meaning of our Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1917, c. 48, §§ 126-152i), when the accident results from a risk reasonably incidental to the employment. Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 113, 116 N. E. 684, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 764;Mueller Construction Co. v. Industrial Board, 283 Ill. 148, 118 N. E. 1028, L. R. A. 1918F, 891, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 808. The burden was on the executrix to show that the death of May was caused by accidental injury arising out of the employment, and to show it by direct and positive evidence, or by evidencefrom which such inference could be fairly drawn. Savoy Hotel Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 329, 116 N. E. 712;Edelweiss Gardens v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 459, 125 N. E. 260. The proof of these facts may be by circumstantial as well as by direct evidence. When it is said that the claimant must prove ner case, it is not meant that she must necessarily prove it by direct evidence, and...