Court Opinion

ID: 9521119
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:57:48.758917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:48.046357
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE DOOLEY, dissenting: As the majority aptly states, the finding of the circuit court that the arbitrator was biased “does not necessarily mean decedent’s death was not the result of a compensable injury” (69 Ill. 2d at 265). It is, of course, the decision of the Commission, as distinguished from that of the arbitrator, with which both the circuit court and this court are concerned. Sweitzer v. Industrial Com. (1946), 394 Ill. 141, 148; Rodriguez v. Industrial Com. (1939), 371 Ill. 590, 593. In my opinion, not only is there substantial evidence to support the finding of the Industrial Commission, but also the majority departs both from the prior opinions of this court and from the majority of other jurisdictions on this issue of the employee’s right to compensation when some natural force plays a part in the injury. Here decedent was required to live on the fairgrounds. His duties had to do with clerical work such as collecting rents and keeping records, as well as protecting the grounds from vandals. His wife’s work embraced similar functions, as well as answering telephone inquiries about events at the fairgrounds. As the majority correctly points out, the trailer decedent and his wife lived in served both as an office and home. It was the only living facility on the fairgrounds. The trailer had been purchased from claimant’s predecessor after conference with the association officials. Part of claimant’s compensation was free ground rent, water and electricity for the trailer. Its location in the center of a 48-acre fairground complex could well make it peculiarly susceptible to the ravages of a tornado. These were matters for the Industrial Commission in performing its well-established fact-trying function. As this court observed in Brewster Motor Co. v. Industrial Com. (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 443, 448-49: “The question whether or not an injury arose out of and in the course of employment is usually one of fact for the Industrial Commission to decide, and its findings in such respect will not ordinarily be disturbed on judicial review, particularly where the evidence on the issue is conflicting or susceptible of different reasonable inferences. [Citations.] * * * The commission’s finding that [decedent’s] injuries and death arose out of his employment represents the resolution of a mixed question of law and fact, and the resolution of this type of question should not be disturbed on review unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. [Citations.] ” Many of the cases referred to in the majority opinion support our position. Inland Steel Co. v. Industrial Com. (1968), 41 Ill. 2d 70 (employee sustained an injury when a piece of roofing struck him after the storm which damaged not only his employer’s building but others in the area), Eisner Food Stores v. Industrial Com. (1965), 33 Ill. 2d 474 (a storm which meteorological records showed had the highest wind speed in 25 years caused a sign wall to fall through a roof killing the employee), and Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Industrial Com. (1920), 291 Ill. 256 (a tornado blew down a portion of the employer’s building and ammonia fumes, together with escaping steam from pipes, brought about the employee’s death), were all instances where the decision of the Commission for the employee was affirmed by this court. The general rule seems to be that so long as the employment in any way combines with the elements of nature, the injury is compensable. In Industrial Com. v. Hampton (1931), 123 Ohio St. 500, 176 N.E. 74, decedent, a yardman, was killed while in a warehouse seeking shelter from a storm that destroyed it; in Many v. Bradford (1935), 266 N.Y. 558, 195 N.E. 199, an employee at a recreation resort, required to be on duty at all times, was struck by lightning while stooping to fasten a tent flap; in State ex rel. Peoples Coal & Ice Co. v. District Court (1915), 129 Minn. 502, 153 N.W. 119, the driver of a wagon left his team of horses in a rainstorm, and the tree he sought shelter under was struck by lightning resulting in his death; in Reid v. Automatic Electric Washer Co. (1920), 189 Iowa 964, 179 N.W. 323, a factory worker, while closing windows in the factory, was killed by debris from other parts of the building; and in Ingram v. Bradley (1969), 183 Neb. 692, 163 N.W.2d 875, a husband and wife, employed at an outdoor theatre, ran inside a ticket booth to avoid a storm, and were-injured when the wind blew over the booth. Each instance was held compensable. Here, whether there was any such combination between the employment and natural forces causing the death and injury in question was preeminently an issue of fact for the Industrial Commission. To this effect see Madura v. City of New York (1924), 238 N.Y. 214, 144 N.E. 505; DeLuca v. Board of Park Commissioners (1919), 94 Conn. 7, 107 A. 611; Larke v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. (1916), 90 Conn. 303, 97 A. 320; Young v. Western Furniture & Manufacturing Co. (1917), 101 Neb. 696, 164 N.W. 712. So also where the work requires that the employee be on the employer’s premises, the employee is to be considered performing services arising out of and in the course of such employment during the time he is on the premises. Many cases turn on this fact; e.g., Whetro v. Awkerman (1970), 383 Mich. 235, 174 N.W.2d 783; Brooks v. Dee Realty Co. (1962), 72 N.J. Super. 499, 178 A.2d 644 (dismissal of common law action on the basis of the Workmen’s Compensation Act); Baran’s Case (1957), 336 Mass. 342, 145 N.E.2d 726; Wilson Cypress Co. v. Miller (1946), 157 Fla. 459, 26 So. 2d 441. Parallel with this proposition is the rule in this jurisdiction that when an employee sustains an injury on the employer’s premises after working hours, it is compensable. The best illustrations are parking lot incidents where a fellow employee may injure another with an automobile. Nonetheless, a common law action cannot be maintained since his exclusive remedy is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act notwithstanding that his duties of the day have terminated. In Chmelik v. Vana (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 272, 279, involving an injury arising out of such facts, this court, in holding that the Workmen’s Compensation Act barred the common law action, observed: “[T] he courts of this jurisdiction have consistently concluded that an injury accidentally received on the premises of the employer by an employee going to or from his actual employment by a customary or permitted route, within a reasonable time before or after work, is received in the course of and arises out of the employment. (Indian Hill Club v. Industrial Com., 309 Ill. 271; Union Starch and Refining Co. v. Industrial Com., 344 Ill. 77; Wabash Ry. Co. v. Industrial Com., 294 Ill. 119; Western Coal and Mining Co. v. Industrial Com., 296 Ill. 408; Biggs v. Farnsworth, 336 Ill. App. 417; Cunningham v. Metzger, 258 Ill. App. 150.) More recently, in both DeHoyos v. Industrial Com., 26 Ill. 2d 110, and Carr v. Industrial Com., 26 Ill. 2d 347, we have aligned ourselves with those jurisdictions holding that the same result obtains with respect to accidental injuries received on parking lots maintained by employers for the use of their employees. E.g. Murphy v. Miettinen, 317 Mass. 633, 59 N.E.2d 252; Rogers’ Case, 318 Mass. 308, 61 N.E.2d 341; DeWar v. General Motors Corp., 19 N.J. Misc. Rep. 297, 19 A.2d 194; E. 1. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. Redding, 194 Okla. 52, 147 P.2d 166; Krovosucky v. Indus. Com., 74 Ohio App. 86, 57 N.E.2d 607.” In my opinion the majority does not express the well-established law on the issue before us. For the reasons stated, I would affirm the decision of the Industrial Commission. MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH joins in this dissent.