{
  "id": 5435319,
  "name": "INTERSTATE UNITED CORPORATION, a Division of Sheraton Oak Brook Hotels, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.-(Louis Scribner, Appellant.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Interstate United Corp. v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1976-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 47701",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 434"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill. 2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2909526
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/49/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "393 Ill. 294",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2476002
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/393/0294-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "394 Ill. 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2472728
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/394/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "408 Ill. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2644398
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/408/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill. 2d 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5358089
      ],
      "year": 1951,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/27/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5436133
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/65/0426-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 297,
    "char_count": 4059,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.905,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1563590685966304e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5829882359936814
    },
    "sha256": "1b14b053502f4d7a2b6cced78a826a4c597212456a92aaffccfef8ba0191b12d",
    "simhash": "1:c9013b8f3ca66fdf",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:37.889160+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "INTERSTATE UNITED CORPORATION, a Division of Sheraton Oak Brook Hotels, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.\u2014(Louis Scribner, Appellant.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe Industrial Commission affirmed an arbitrator\u2019s award of workmen\u2019s compensation to the claimant, Louis Scribner, for injuries he sustained when he was assaulted by a fellow employee. The circuit court of Cook County reversed, and the claimant has appealed.\nThe claimant was employed as a captain in the dining room of the Sheraton Hotel in Oak Brook, Illinois. For several months prior to January 2, 1973, there had been animosity between the claimant and another captain at the restaurant, James Renwick. Several times during that period Renwick accused the claimant and other employees of breaking the antenna off his automobile. On the evening of December 31, 1972, a customer in the dining room specifically requested that he be served by the claimant. The customer was seated in an area that was assigned neither to the claimant nor to Renwick, but to another captain, Scott. The customer in question had frequently requested that he be served by the claimant. During the evening Renwick approached the claimant at this customer\u2019s table and vilified and threatened the claimant, accusing him at one time of \u201crunning the room\u201d and at another of breaking the aerial off his car. That evening ended without further incident.\nOn January 2, 1973, the claimant arrived at the hotel for work and went to the employee\u2019s locker room to change clothes. There he encountered Renwick, who angrily said something about his car antenna having been broken off again that day, pulled a revolver and fired several shots at the floor. One shot ricocheted. It hit the claimant in the right foot and produced the injury for which compensation is sought.\nThe question in this case is whether the Commission erred in ruling that the claimant had established the requisite causal connection between his employment and his injury. At the hearing before the arbitrator the claimant testified that he believed Renwick shot him because of the dispute on New Year\u2019s Eve over the customer\u2019s request to be served by the claimant. This was the first time that he had told anyone of that belief, and his testimony was thoroughly impeached.\nOn cross-examination the claimant testified that on New Year\u2019s Eve Renwick was angry about his dislodged auto antennas. On redirect examination the claimant admitted that Renwick had said something about an automobile aerial just before firing the shots. Several other witnesses testified that shortly after the occurrence the claimant attributed the assault to Renwick\u2019s belief that the claimant had broken the aerials on his car. Police officers who arrested Renwick testified that he admitted the shooting and explained it as a response to his broken aerials.\nThe manifest weight of the evidence in this case is clearly contrary to the Commission\u2019s finding that the injury was work-related. Even though a fight occurs on the employer\u2019s premises, resulting injuries are not compensable if the underlying dispute is not connected with the work. Malco, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 426; Huddleston v. Industrial Com. (1963), 27 Ill. 2d 446; Fischer v. Industrial Com. (1951), 408 Ill. 115; Math Igler\u2019s Casino, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1946), 394 Ill. 330; Chicago Hardware Foundry Co. v. Industrial Com. (1946), 393 Ill. 294.\nThe evidence failed to establish that the claimant\u2019s injuries in the case before us were related to a risk inherent in or incidental to his duties as an employee (Thurber v. Industrial Com. (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 561), and the judgment of the circuit court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nMR. JUSTICE CREES took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE SCHAEFER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "J. Michael Madda, of Chicago (John E. Flavin, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Perz & McGuire, of Chicago (Frank M. Perz and James C. Serkland, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 47701.\nINTERSTATE UNITED CORPORATION, a Division of Sheraton Oak Brook Hotels, Appellee, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al.\u2014(Louis Scribner, Appellant.)\nOpinion filed December 3, 1976.\nCREBS, J., took no part.\nJ. Michael Madda, of Chicago (John E. Flavin, of counsel), for appellant.\nPerz & McGuire, of Chicago (Frank M. Perz and James C. Serkland, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 506,
  "last_page_order": 508
}