Weis Paper Mill Co. v. Indus. Comm'n, 13263.

• Decision Date: 16 June 1920
• Docket Number: No. 13263.,13263.
• Citation: 127 N.E. 732,293 Ill. 284
• Parties: WEIS PAPER MILL CO. v. INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

293 Ill. 284

127 N.E. 732

WEIS PAPER MILL CO.

v.INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.

No. 13263.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

June 16, 1920.

Error to Circuit Court, Adams County; Albert Akers, Judge.

Claim by Pearl Klosing, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for compensation for the death of Charles P. Klosing, against the Weis Paper Mill Company. Compensation was awarded by the arbitrator and the Industrial Commission, and the circuit court confirmed the decision of the Commission in proceedings by the employer against the Industrial Commission and others, and the employer brings error.

Reversed.Fyffe, Ryner & Dale, of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.

John E. Wall, of Quincy, for defendant in error.

CARTER, J.

Charles P. Klosing at the time of his injury, in June, 1918, was employed by plaintiff in error in loading wagons of straw near its mill. During a rest period, while lying in the shade of a box car on a switch track on plaintiff in error's premises, the car was backed up and ran over his legs, crushing them, and he died the next day in the hospital. Compensation was awarded by the arbitrator and the Industrial Commission, and the circuit court confirmed the decision of the commission. The cause has been brought to this court on writ of error.

The record shows no controversy as to the facts. The plaintiff in error operated a paper mill in Quincy, Adams county. A large strastack was situated about half a block south of the mill. There was also a shed 300 or 400 feet from the stack, and there were switch tracks on the mill premises between the shed and the stack. The employés were accustomed to go to the shed for drinking water and kept some of their clothes there. Two wagons were employed in taking the straw to the mill from the stack. While one was going to the mill and being unloaded the other would be in process of loading at the stack. Klosing's work was to assist in loading wagons at the stack and other employés had charge of taking the wagons to the mill and unloading them. The evidence shows that the men loading at the stack, would frequently have to wait until a space was cleared upstairs in the mill for the unloading of the straw hauled there. The deceased and two other persons who were engaged in loading the wagon at the strawstack were resting during such an interval while a wagon was being unloaded at the mill at the time this accident occurred. It seems to have been a very warm day, and no point is made that it was the duty of the deceased to be working at the time of his injury, but it is argued, rather, that the spot he chose for his rest was improper and dangerous; that it could not reasonably have been contemplated in the contract of employment that the deceased, while he had no duties to perform at the strawstack, would lie down on the switch track in the shade of a freight car, which might be moved at any time. It appears from the record that a switch engine came upon that track twice a day. It is also shown that there was shade at the stack where the deceased had been working, and he could have gone to the shed to rest if he had desired.

In order for an employé to recover for an injury, such injury must have arisen out of and in the course of the employment. This court has said that to recover for an accident under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1913, p. 335) it must result from a risk reasonably incidental to the employment; that an accident arises in the course of the employment if it occurs while the employé is doing what a man so employed may reasonably do within a time during which he is employedand at a place where he may reasonably be during that time to do that thing; that an accident arises out of the employment when it is something the risk of which might have been contemplated by a reasonable person when entering the employment, as incidental to it. A risk is incidental to the employment when it belongs to or is connected with what a workman has to do in fulfilling his contract of service. It may be incidental to the employment when it is either an ordinary risk directly connected with the employment or an extraordinary risk which is only indirectly connected therewith. Dietzen Co. v. Industrial Board, 279 Ill. 11, 116 N. E. 684, Ann. Cas. 1918B, 764. This court has said that it was not intended by this act that the employer who comes within its provisions shall be the insurer of the safety of the employé.

‘The employer is liable for compensation only for an injury which occurs to the employé while performing some act for the employer in the course of his employment or incidental to it.’ Fairbank Co. v. Industrial Com., 285 Ill. 11, 120 N. E. 457.

‘An accident, to be within the Workmen's Compensation Act, must have had its origin in some risk of the employment.’ Edelweiss Gardens v. Industrial Com., 290 Ill. 459, 125 N. E. 260.

Conceding that it may be fairly inferred from the facts in this record that this accident arose in the course of the employment, it may well be questioned whether it arose out of the employment. It is not the rule that all accidents which happen during the leisure periods of the employé in attendance on personal comforts or necessities are held not to arise out of the employment; for, if an accident happens at such a time, there would be no break in the employment, even though the employé is paid for the time he is actually at work, especially when the accident occurs on the employer's premises or about his property, unless the workman is doing something wholly foreign to his employment. Acts of ministration to himself, such as quenching...