{
  "id": 2880024,
  "name": "Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc., et al., Appellees, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (Terry Hopping, Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc. v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1966-01-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 39388",
  "first_page": "146",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ill. 2d 146"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 251,
    "char_count": 3388,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.815,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43703802808580733
    },
    "sha256": "97b41f14c155c0325739f8bf61cb91e1b0dba896c6e1c391080d76c384e6a1df",
    "simhash": "1:8669094158024cfa",
    "word_count": 580
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:35:21.499506+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc., et al., Appellees, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Terry Hopping, Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Hershey\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the circuit court of Knox County, reversing the Industrial Commission\u2019s award of compensation to appellant, Terry Hopping. The sole question before this court on appeal is whether appellant was an employee of Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc., at the time he suffered the injury for which he seeks compensation.\nThere is no conflict in the testimony. Appellant was a fourteen-year old boy whose father worked as a truck driver for the Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc. Sometime prior to May 21, 1963, the manager of the cartage company\u2019s Galesburg office mentioned to appellant\u2019s father that he was looking for someone to cut the weeds on the company\u2019s vacant property adjoining the terminal building. Hopping said that his young son might like the job, and the plant manager told Hopping that he would pay appellant the lump sum of $40 for the entire job, if that sounded agreeable with appellant. Hopping related the offer to his son, who agreed to do the job.\nOn the morning of June 6, 1963, appellant arrived at the company\u2019s terminal building with his father\u2019s power lawn mower to start cutting. Appellant was given general instructions by the terminal manager as to the area to be cut, but he was then left on his own to complete the job. There was no fixed time for completion, and appellant was permitted to work as many hours a day for as many days as it took to finish the job. It was estimated by appellant that the entire job would take a total of 24 hours.\nAfter he had been cutting weeds for about an hour, appellant fell and was injured when his right foot was struck by the blades of the mower.\nWe concur in the trial court\u2019s determination that under the facts of this case appellant was not an employee of Burlington Chicago Cartage, Inc., and therefore not entitled to recovery. The Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act defines an employee as a \u201cperson in the service of another under any contract of hire, * * * not including any person who is not engaged in the usual course of the trade, business, profession or occupation of his employer.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, chap. 48, par. 138.1.) It is apparent that appellant was not engaged in the usual course of business of the cartage company. He had never worked for the cartage company before and was hired to do a particular job, for which he was to be paid a lump sum. Whatever relationship existed between them was to terminate after completion of the job. Appellant used his own equipment and was left to finish the job whenever he wished and in any manner he wished. As was found by the trial court, appellant was \u201canswerable to the cartage company only as to the end result and not as to the means by which it was to be accomplished.\u201d The evidence in this case clearly does not sustain a finding that an employer-employee relationship existed between appellant and the cartage company.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Knox County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Hershey"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Perz and McGuire, of Chicago, (Frank M. Perz, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Bozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Henss, of Moline, (Hubbard B. Neighbour, of counsel,) for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 39388.\nBurlington Chicago Cartage, Inc., et al., Appellees, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Terry Hopping, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed Jan. 25, 1966.\nRehearing denied March 23, 1966.\nPerz and McGuire, of Chicago, (Frank M. Perz, of counsel,) for appellant.\nBozeman, Neighbour, Patton & Henss, of Moline, (Hubbard B. Neighbour, of counsel,) for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0146-01",
  "first_page_order": 146,
  "last_page_order": 148
}