Stevens v. Illinois Cent. R. Co.

Decision Date09 February 1923
Docket NumberNo. 14718.,14718.
Citation306 Ill. 370,137 N.E. 859
PartiesSTEVENS v. ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Appellate Court, Fourth District, on Appeal from Circuit Court, Marion County; Julius C. Kern, Judge.

Action by Roscoe Stevens against the Illinois Central Railroad Company. Judgment for plaintiff was affirmed by the Appellate Court, and defendant brings certiorari.

Reversed and remanded.Charles E. Feirich, of Carbondale, and Frank F. Noleman, June C. Smith, and Andrew J. Dallstream, all of Centralia (W. S. Horton, of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

W. G. Wilson, of Centralia, and Robert E. Wright, of Greenville, for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, C. J.

Roscoe Stevens (hereinafter called plaintiff), by Dollie Stevens, his mother and next friend, brought his action in the circuit court of Marion county against the Illinois Central Railroad Company to recover damages for personal injuries received in a collision between an automobile truck driven by him and a passenger train operated by the servants of defendant at a public crossing near the village of Odin, June 29, 1920. Plaintiff recovered a judgment for $1,900, and this judgment was affirmed on appeal to the Appellate Court for the Fourth District. The cause is here by certiorari.

The trial was had upon the declaration filed by plaintiff, which set out in its four counts various grounds for recovery, and special pleas filed by defendant, averring that defendant was doing a general railroad business at the time of the collision, and was therefore engaged in ‘carriage by land,’ within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, p. 335), that plaintiff was an employee of Robert D. Stoafer, who was doing a general truck and transfer business, and was likewise engaged in ‘carriage by land * * * and loading or unloading in connection therewith,’ and that at the time of the collision plaintiff was engaged in the performance of his duties in said employment, and that the injury to him, if any, arose out of and in the course of his employment, and his right of recovery, if any, was controlled by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Section 3 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended in 1919 (Laws 1919, p. 539), provides:

‘The provisions of this act hereinafter following shall apply automatically, and without election, * * * to all employers and their employees, engaged in any of the following enterprises or businesses which are declared to be extrahazardous, namely: * * * 3. Carriage by land or water and loading or unloading in connection therewith, including the distribution of any commodity by horse-drawn or motor-driven vehicle where the employer employs more than three employees in the enterprise or business.’

By the amendment of 1919, the clause, ‘including the distribution of any commodity by horse-drawn or motor-driven vehicle where the employer employs more than three employees in the enterprise or business,’ was added to paragraph 3. Plaintiff contends that the clause, ‘where the employer employs more than three employees in the enterprise or business,’refers to every enterprise or business included within paragraph 3, while defendant contends that it refers only to a business or enterprise which distributes its own commodity by horse-drawn or motor-driven vehicles.

It is clear that the Legislature by the amendment of 1919 intended to bring within the terms of the Compensation Act additional employers and their employees, and that it did not intend to exclude employers and employees who were already under the act. Before the amendment all employers and their employees engaged in the business of carriage by land were under the act, regardless of the number of employees employed in the business. There does not occur to us any reason why the Legislature would declare to be extrahazardous a transfer business which employs four truck drivers, without declaring to be extrahazardous a transfer business employing three truck drivers. The hazards would not be increased or diminished as far as each driver is concerned. It is clear that the Legislature intended to add to the businesses declared to be extrahazardous those businesses where commodities are distributed by horse-drawn or motor-driven vehicles as an incident to the principal business of the employer, provided more than three employees are employed in the business.

This construction accords with the well-recognized rule of statutory construction known as the doctrine of the ‘last antecedent clause.’ This canon of construction is that relative or qualifying words or phrases are to be applied to the words or phrases immediately preceding, and as not extending to or including other words, phrases, or clauses more remote, unless such extension or inclusion is clearly required by the intent and meaning of the context or disclosed by an examination of the entire act. Nebraska State Railway Com. v. Alfalfa Butter Co., 104 Neb. 797, 178 N. W. 766;Traverse City v. Blair Township, 190 Mich. 313, 157 N. W. 81, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 81;Massachusetts General Hospital v. Inhabitants of Belmont, 233 Mass. 190, 124 N. E. 21;State v. Centennial Brewing Co., 55 Mont. 500, 179 Pac. 296.It is clear to us that all businesses of carriage by land are automatically brought within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, without regard to the number of employees engaged in the business.

The proof showed without contradiction that plaintiff was employed as the driver of a truck and that his employer was engaged in a general transfer business, which is a business of carriage by land, and it also showed without contradiction that the injury received by plaintiff arose out of and in the course of this employment. It follows, therefore, that plaintiff is bound by the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and he cannot maintain an action against defendant for damages for personal injuries arising out of his employment if defendant is likewise under the act. Friebel v. Chicago City Railway Co., 280 Ill. 76, 117 N. E. 467. The pleadings and the evidence now before us show that the defendant was engaged in a business which brought it within the provisions of the act, and, in order for plaintiff to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
43 cases
  • Michaud v. Steckino
    • United States
    • Maine Supreme Court
    • August 31, 1978
    ...that are shown to be probable, from which it may be inferred that they are reasonably certain to follow. 2 See Stevens v. Illinois Cent. R. Co., 306 Ill. 370, 137 N.E. 859 (1922); Michalski v. Wagner, 9 Wis.2d 22, 100 N.W.2d 354 (1960); Hahn v. McDowell, 349 S.W.2d 479, 482 (Mo.App., 1961);......
  • Mangiaracino v. Laclede Steel Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1940
    ...reason that his injuries did not arise out of and in the course of his employment within the meaning of those terms as used in the Illinois Compensation Act. Great A. & Pac. Tea Co. v. Industrial Comm., 347 Ill. Dietzen v. Industrial Comm., 279 Ill. 11; Nelson Railroad Const. Co. v. Industr......
  • LaFever v. Kemlite Co., a Div. of Dyrotech Industries, Inc.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 31, 1998
    ...fact or future condition. Brown, 162 Ill.App.3d at 936-37, 114 Ill.Dec. 165, 516 N.E.2d 320, quoting Stevens v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 306 Ill. 370, 377, 137 N.E. 859 (1922). We agree. Our conclusion that In support of his claim in this case, plaintiff introduced the testimony of Dr. Ti......
  • Dillon v. Evanston Hosp.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 23, 2002
    ...Traction Co., 243 Ill. 263, 267, 90 N.E. 673 (1909). In 1922, this court reiterated this position in Stevens v. Illinois Central R.R. Co., 306 Ill. 370, 377, 137 N.E. 859 (1922). Based on the principles noted in Amann and Stevens, some panels of our appellate court have denied recovery for ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles

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