Sure Pure Ice Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

Decision Date18 February 1926
Docket NumberNo. 17146.,17146.
Citation150 N.E. 909,320 Ill. 332
PartiesSURE PURE ICE CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
CourtIllinois Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Error to Circuit Court, Cook County; Harry M. Fisher, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Josephine Manthey for the death of Frank Manthey, her husband, claimant, opposed by the Sure Pure Ice Company, employer. From a judgment of the circuit court, confirming an award of the Industrial Commission, the employer brings error.

Reversed, and award set aside.

Good, Childs, Bobb & Wescott, of Chicago (Dwight S. Bobb and F. M. Hartman, both of Chicago, of counsel), for plaintiff in error.

J. W. Koucky, of Chicago, for defendant in error.

DUNN, C. J.

The circuit court of Cook county confirmed an award of the Industrial Commission against the Sure Pure Ice Company for the death of Frank Manthey, and a writ of error was allowed for the review of the record.

The only question is whether the death of Frank Manthey was caused by an accident arising out of his employment. Manthey was killed about 4:30 o'clock the morning of October 6, 1924. He had been for four years in the employ of the plaintiff in error as chief engineer, having charge of the whole plant. His regular hours of work were from 8 o'clock a. m. to 4 o'clock p. m., but he also worked at night whenever he was called. It was his duty to fix anything which broke down at night, and to see that the men did their work, and he was frequently at the plant at night in the discharge of his duties. Three men were employed at night work-an engineer, a puller, and a man in the ice house. Henry Bour was an engineer employed by the plaintiff in error, whose hours of work were from midnight until 8 o'clock a. m., but he was not on duty the morning of the 6th, as that was his night off. Manthey went to Bour's house on the night of the 5th, and asked him to go to the plant with him to see if everything was all right. They went to the plant in Manthey's automobile about 1 or 2 o'clock, and Manthey went in while Bour remained in the car. Manthey came out about 3 o'clock, and then went back. He came out again, and was standing on the sidewalk on Ravenswood avenue, near the automobile, talking with Mr. Fountaine, who had come with them from Bour's house, when a police automobile came toward them from the south on Cornelia street, around the corner on Ravenswood avenue. There was a light at that corner, which was about 100 feet from them, by which they could see each other and could see to the corner. Bour said to Manthey, ‘Here comes the squad.’ Manthey said nothing, but turned, and walked toward the plant. The police automobile stopped near the Manthey car, and the officers got out, and called to Manthey to halt when he was about 10 feet distant from them, around the loading platform at the corner ‘where the salt pile was.’ He did not halt or answer, but continued to walk. One of the officers called to him to halt, and said if he did not the officer would fire, and he did fire into the salt pile. Officer Kennedy then called to him to halt, but he walked on to the door of the plant. Kennedy then shot and killed him. He was dead when Kennedy reached him. The policemen were in uniform, and were recognized as policemen by Bour as soon as their car turned the corner. Manthey was in the performance of his duties as chief engineer in charge of the plant. Was there an accident arising out of his employment?

[1][2][3] The rule is that an accident, to be within the Compensation Act (Smith-Hurd Rev. St. 1925, c. 48, §§ 138-172), must have had its origin in some risk of the employment, but the cases are so various that it is impossible to establish a fixed rule for determining what is a risk of the employment. There must be some causal relation between the employment and the injury. The injury must be of such a character that it may be seen to have had its origin...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • Walker v. Hyde
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1927
    ... ... 98; Gale v. Krug Park ... Amusement Co. (Neb.), 208 N.W. 739; Sure Pure Ice ... Co. v. Industrial Com., 320 Ill. 332, 150 N.E. 909; ... ...
  • Chicago Hardware Foundry Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 29297.
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 20, 1946
    ...Industrial Comm., 312 Ill. 27, 143 N.E. 420;Edelweiss Gardens v. Industrial Comm., 290 Ill. 459, 125 N.E. 260;Sure Pure Ice Co. v. Industrial Comm., 320 Ill. 332, 150 N.E. 909;Borgeson v. Industrial Comm., 368 Ill. 188, 13 N.E.2d 164;Jersey Ice Cream Co. v. Industrial Comm., 309 Ill. 187, 1......
  • Olson Drilling Co. v. Indus. Comm'n
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • May 11, 1944
    ...cause having no relation to the nature of the employment. Klug v. Industrial Comm., 381 Ill. 608, 46 N.E.2d 38;Sure Pure Ice Co. v. Industrial Comm., 320 Ill. 332, 150 N.E. 909. Plaintiff in error contends that as Wolf elected to ride in an automobile to reach his place of employment and al......
  • Carr v. Murch Bros. Const. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • December 3, 1929
    ... ... Mathieson Alkali Company, Inc., et al., 186 ... N.Y.S. 752; Sure Pure Ice Company v. Industrial ... Commission et al. (Ill.), 150 N.E ... ...
  • 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