Superior Coal Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 18172.

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtDUNN
Citation326 Ill. 584,158 N.E. 209
PartiesSUPERIOR COAL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
Decision Date11 October 1927
Docket NumberNo. 18172.

326 Ill. 584
158 N.E. 209

SUPERIOR COAL CO.
v.
INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 18172.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 22, 1927.
Rehearing Denied Oct. 11, 1927.


Error to Circuit Court, Macoupin County; Frank W. Burton, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Joe Schieall, claimant, opposed by the Superior Coal Company, employer. From an order of the Industrial Commission, granting an award, claimant appealed to the circuit court, which set aside the award, and claimant brings error.

Reversed, and award confirmed.


[326 Ill. 584]A. W. Kerr, of Chicago, and Joseph A. Londrigan, of Springfield, for plaintiff in error.

Vaughn & Nevins, of Carlinville, for defendant in error.


DUNN, J.

The circuit court of Macoupin county having set aside an award of the Industrial Commission against the Superior Coal Company in favor of Joe Schieall, a writ of error was allowed on his petition to review the judgment.

The plaintiff in error, an employee of the Superior Coal Company, on December 24, 1925, being alone, was setting a prop, on top of which he undertook to drive a wedge or cap piece. In doing so he struck the roof with his sledge hammer, scratching the sulphur, so that some of it fell into his left eye. He finished setting the prop and went home. The mine was not in operation on the 25th, 26th, or 27th, and during that time the plaintiff in error was not bothered much by his eye. He testified before the arbitrator that on [326 Ill. 585]the 28th the eye was red and sore, and he went to Dr. Senelick, who was his family doctor. He is probably mistaken about the date, however, for he also testified that he treated his eye for about eight days with some medicine which Dr. Morris, of Springfield, had given for the use of the plaintiff in error's son, whose eye had been hurt in the mine almost three years before, and on the hearing before the commission Dr. Senelick testified, as a witness called by the employer, that he had no record of having been consulted prior to January 4, the date which his record shows of the first visit to his office. On that date two visits were made, on January 6 two, and on January 7 one. On the 4th there was a well-developed ulcer of the cornea and the eye was generally inflamed. The doctor thought the ulcer was the former site of a foreign body, but was unable to find any foreign body. The condition did not improve, but on the 7th was aggravated, and the doctor advised the plaintiff in error to consult a specialist.

The plaintiff in error testified that he did not work on the 28th, or until March 1, because of the condition of his eye. He reported the accident at the mine office on January 8, and was examined and treated by Dr. Sullivan, mine physician at Gillespie, who found the eye badly inflamed, with a hazy area over the entire pupil, and sent the plaintiff in error to Dr. Morris, at Springfield, a specialist in diseases of the eye. He first examined the plaintiff in error on the 9th. There was then a very severe ulcer, covering most of the pupillary area, the inner half of the cornea was hazy, due to an infiltration into the tissue of the cornea, and the inside of the eye was about one-fourth or one-half filled with pus from a perforating ulcer, letting the pus drain down on the inside. It had the appearance of having got in there probably from some particle of dust that caused a break and infection in the corneal...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 practice notes
  • Superior Coal Co. v. Dep't of Finance, No. 26166.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 15, 1941
    ...injured employees are made against the plaintiff coal company, and not against the railway company. Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N.E. 209, 54 A.L.R. 634;Id., 304 Ill. 320, 136 N.E. 762. There are other instances in which the two companies are intimately affiliate......
  • Gidley v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 22197.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • April 10, 1934
    ...to the injury such as a reasonably prudent person would adopt in his situation and circumstance? Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N. E. 209, 54 A. L. R. 634. On this issue the plaintiff in error had the burden of proof. In the case of Gorral v. Hamlyn & Son, 38 R.......
  • Panther Creek Mines, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 20225.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1930
    ...that the eyesight might have been saved or partially saved if Dr. Morris had treated it sooner. Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N. E. 209, 54 A. L. R. 634. The award made by the Industrial Commission was that the claimant receive from his employer the sum of $242 for......
  • City of Lakeland v. Burton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 6, 1941
    ...P. 179, 7 A.L.R. 1180 (see annotations following in 7 A.L.R.); annotation 39 A.L.R. 1276, et seq.; Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N.E. 209, 54 A.L.R. 634, and annotations 127 A.L.R. 1110 et seq. Let it be understood that the rule as above stated is one which applie......
4 cases
  • Superior Coal Co. v. Dep't of Finance, No. 26166.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • September 15, 1941
    ...injured employees are made against the plaintiff coal company, and not against the railway company. Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N.E. 209, 54 A.L.R. 634;Id., 304 Ill. 320, 136 N.E. 762. There are other instances in which the two companies are intimately affiliate......
  • Gidley v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 22197.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • April 10, 1934
    ...to the injury such as a reasonably prudent person would adopt in his situation and circumstance? Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N. E. 209, 54 A. L. R. 634. On this issue the plaintiff in error had the burden of proof. In the case of Gorral v. Hamlyn & Son, 38 R.......
  • Panther Creek Mines, Inc. v. Indus. Comm'n, No. 20225.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • December 18, 1930
    ...that the eyesight might have been saved or partially saved if Dr. Morris had treated it sooner. Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Com., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N. E. 209, 54 A. L. R. 634. The award made by the Industrial Commission was that the claimant receive from his employer the sum of $242 for......
  • City of Lakeland v. Burton
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Florida
    • June 6, 1941
    ...P. 179, 7 A.L.R. 1180 (see annotations following in 7 A.L.R.); annotation 39 A.L.R. 1276, et seq.; Superior Coal Co. v. Industrial Comm., 326 Ill. 584, 158 N.E. 209, 54 A.L.R. 634, and annotations 127 A.L.R. 1110 et seq. Let it be understood that the rule as above stated is one which applie......

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