United States Fuel Co. v. Indus. Comm'n

• Decision Date: 20 October 1923
• Docket Number: No. 15415.,15415.
• Citation: 310 Ill. 85,141 N.E. 401
• Parties: UNITED STATES FUEL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

310 Ill. 85

141 N.E. 401

UNITED STATES FUEL CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 15415.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

Oct. 20, 1923.

Error to Circuit Court, Vermilion County; John H. Marshall, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Zoe Lannoy to recover for the death of Marcel Lannoy against the United States Fuel Company. An award of the Industrial Commission was on certiorari to the circuit court set aside, and the claimant brings error.

Judgment of circuit court affirmed.

Sam Gilbert, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

Knapp & Campbell, of Chicago (J. L. Earlywine, of Chicago, of counsel), for defendant in error.

THOMPSON, J.

December 2, 1920, Marcel Lannoy, a young man 23 years old, who was then, and had been for 6 or 7 years, in the employ of the United States Fuel Company, defendant in error, was due at his work at the mine at 8:30 p. m. His mother prepared his lunch for him and he took his bucket and started for the mine about 7:40 p. m. Ordinarily it took him seven or eight minutes to walk from his home to the mine. At 7:50 p. m. the pumpman, who was working a few feet from the bottom of the shaft, heard the crash of a falling object, and on going to investigate found Lannoy's dead body. Lannoy's lunch bucket was found a few feet from the entrance to the shaft, where it was customary for the miners to leave their buckets until it was time to go to work. About the time Lannoy left home John Misavage, a miner, arrived at the mine, put his bucket in the usual place, and went to the locker room to change his clothes. He passed within six feet of the entrance to the shaft and the gates were closed at that time. The miners have no authority to open the gates at the entrance to the shaft, and the evidence in the record is that they did not open them. When the time arrives for the miners to go into the mine, the superintendent or foreman notifies the engineer and the cage is placed at the surface. The man in charge of the gate signals to the engineer by ringing the bell three times that the miners are ready, and the engineer replies by signaling that the cage can be loaded. The gates are then opened and the cage is loaded with miners. The gates are closed and the gateman signals the engineer by ringing the bell twice. The cage is then lowered. It is not possible for a man to stand on the cage and give the signals to the engineer. If the pumpman or some emergency man disires to be raised or lowered between shifts, he notifies the engineer, and some one is sent with him to give the proper signals. When the cage is not in use, it stands betweenthe ground level and the top of the tipple. It was in that position at the time Lannoy fell into the shaft.

The sole controverted question is whether the accident arose out of and in the course of decedent's employment. The commission found that it did and entered an award accordingly. On certiorari to the circuit court of Vermilion county the award was set aside, and this court has allowed a writ of error to review the judgment of the circuit court.

[1][2] The Workmen's Compensation Act (Hurd's Rev. St. 1921, c. 48, §§ 126-152i) provides a new method of procedure for obtaining redress for personal injuries, but it does not change the rules of evidence not the burden of proof. The rules respecting the admission of evidence and the burden of proof are the same as prevail in common-law actions for personal injury. Chicago Daily News Co. v. Industrial Com., 306 Ill. 212, 137 N. E. 797. Before a claimant can recover compensation, he must prove by a preponderance of competent evidence that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment. Liability under the Compensation Act cannot rest upon imagination, speculation, or conjecture-upon a choice between two views equally compatible with the evidence-but must be based upon facts established by a preponderance of the evidence. Camp Spring Mill Co. v. Industrial Com., 302 Ill. 136, 134 N. E. 30;Savoy Hotel Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 329, 116 N. E. 712.

In Peterson & Co. v. Industrial Board, 281 Ill. 326, 117 N. E. 1033, an aged employee was found wandering about the factory about half an hour after work had ended for the day. He was in a dazed condition, was unable to speak, and was found to have a broken collar bone. He lingered in bed in a semiconscious condition for about two weeks and then died. Compensation was denied on the ground that there was no proof that his death was the result of an industrial accident arising out of his employment.

In Wisconsin Steel Co. v. Industrial Com., 288 Ill. 206, 123 N. E. 295, a blast-furnace worker who was employed on the night shift in a plant near the Calumet river disappeared from the plant about midnight and two days later his body was found in the river about 200...