{
  "id": 5379890,
  "name": "Fay T. Moore, d/b/a F. T. Moore and Son, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (Henry Paisley Lovette, Appellee.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1966-09-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 39798",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "350",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 Ill. 2d 347"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 Ill. 480",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2421792
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/291/0480-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "370 Ill. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2561312
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/370/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "405 Ill. 50",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2627237
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "53"
        },
        {
          "page": "56-58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/405/0050-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 373,
    "char_count": 6011,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5212427442681021
    },
    "sha256": "40ac883fcabbb39fca728f781636bec6ad5de2963433d3ba9efd34bd7dfddbca",
    "simhash": "1:8ee272f64fe51e9b",
    "word_count": 1034
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:37.175519+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Fay T. Moore, d/b/a F. T. Moore and Son, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Henry Paisley Lovette, Appellee.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Schaefer\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nOn Saturday, October 6, 1962, Henry P. Lovette started to drive from Urbana, Illinois, to a construction project in Philo, Illinois, nine miles south. According to his undisputed testimony, his car was forced from the road by a cattle truck and crashed into a concrete abutment. He was seriously injured. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the accident occurred during the course of his employment, so that his injuries are compensable under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. 111. Rev. Stat. 1961, chap. 48, pars. 138.1 to 138.28.\nAn arbitrator determined that Lovette was not in the course of his employment at the time of the accident. This determination was reversed by the Industrial Commission, and the commission\u2019s award was confirmed by the circuit court of Champaign County. The case is here on the employer\u2019s direct appeal.\nLovette had been employed by Fay T. Moore for approximately 2j\u00a3 years at the time of the accident. Moore was a general contractor whose business was conducted, under the name F. T. Moore and Son, in Champaign, Urbana, and other communities in Champaign County. Lovette was paid on an hourly basis for his services, which he described as \u201ccarpenter, concrete, painting, anything that came along.\u201d His weekly earnings averaged $100.\nOn the date of the accident, Moore had two construction projects underway. One was an apartment building in Champaign; the other was a house in Philo. Lovette had worked at the Philo project on the day before the accident. He testified, \u201cWe ran out of material on this job and [Moore] said that there would be no more work on that job until he went to Farmer City and got some lumber the next morning.\u201d\nOn Saturday, October 6, Lovette reported to the construction project in Champaign. He asked Fay T. Moore\u2019s son, Jerry Moore, whether he could work there as a painter. Jerry Moore replied that there were too few brushes for an additional painter. Lovette then asked whether Fay T. Moore had gone to Farmer City, and said, \u201c[Moore] is going to be in a mess if it continues raining.\u201d According to Lovette\u2019s testimony, Jerry Moore responded, \u201cHe sure is. * * * If you want to work, go down and help him unload this lumber when it comes.\u201d Lovette said that if the rain continued, he would do so. He testified that Jerry Moore repeated that his father would be happy to have Lovette\u2019s assistance.\nLovette returned to his home in Urbana, where he picked up a raincoat and rainhat. He testified that he then began the trip to Philo, and that the accident occurred shortly before noon. He admitted that an opened bottle of liquor was in his car at the time of the accident, but denied that he had anything to drink. A doctor who treated him in a hospital emergency room after the accident noted on his chart, however, \u201cstrong odor from mouth, suggesting recent intake of alcohol.\u201d\nIt is not disputed that if Lovette was simply on his way to work at the time of the accident, his injuries would not be compensable. This court said in Benjamin H. Sanborn Co. v. Industrial Com. 405 Ill. 50, 53, \u201cThe general rule is firmly established that injuries sustained by an employee while going to, or returning from, the employer\u2019s place of business do not arise out of or in the course of the employment * * (See, e.g., Public Service Co. of Northern Illinois v. Industrial Com. 370 Ill. 334; United Disposal and Recovery Co. v. Industrial Com. 291 Ill. 480.) To avoid application of this general rule, Lovette argues that he was specifically directed by Jerry Moore to report to Philo and that he would have been paid for the time he spent traveling. Cf. Benjamin H. Sanborn Co. v. Industrial Com. 405 Ill. 50, 56-58.\nIn our opinion Jerry Moore\u2019s statements to Lovette can not fairly be construed as a direction to Lovette to go to Philo. Lovette was told only that he could report there if he wished to work. He understood that the choice was his and answered that he would go if the rain continued. In these circumstances, Lovette had no obligation to report to Philo. At most he had the assurance of Jerry Moore that work would be available when he arrived.\nLovette testified that his wages would have included compensation for the time he spent on the trip to Philo. This conclusion was apparently not based on any specific assurance by Fay T. Moore or Jerry Moore, but rested instead on Fay T. Moore\u2019s employment practices as Lovette had observed them. Lovette described these general practices when he was asked on direct examination, \u201cWere you paid for the time spent in traveling ?\u201d He answered: \u201cAfter we reported for work, and on special occasions, you know, if he sent you somewhere he paid you for that. If you reported to work, * * * your time started in and you were paid.\u201d Lovette\u2019s description was confirmed by Fay T. Moore, who testified that an employee was paid from the time he reported to work at a construction site. If it became necessary to travel to a different project after the work day had begun, the employee\u2019s traveling time was charged to the second job. This practice does not, in our opinion, warrant an inference that Lovette would have been paid for the time he spent traveling to Philo. He had not reported to his first assignment of the day, but had only inquired at Champaign whether there was work for him to do. Lovette was not expected at either of his employer\u2019s projects on the day of the accident, and the evidence does not justify a finding that he would have been paid for driving to Philo.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Champaign County, confirming the award of the Industrial Commission, is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Schaefer"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Reno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, of Champaign, for appellant.",
      "Mitchem, Hendrix & Aldeen, of Urbana, (Charles W. Hendrix, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 39798.\nFay T. Moore, d/b/a F. T. Moore and Son, Appellant, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Henry Paisley Lovette, Appellee.)\nOpinion filed, September 23, 1966.\nReno, O\u2019Byrne & Kepley, of Champaign, for appellant.\nMitchem, Hendrix & Aldeen, of Urbana, (Charles W. Hendrix, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 349,
  "last_page_order": 352
}
