{ "id": 3031291, "name": "JEANNE GREENE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Orkin Exterminating, Inc., Appellee)", "name_abbreviation": "Greene v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1981-11-13", "docket_number": "No. 54149", "first_page": "1", "last_page": "6", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "87 Ill. 2d 1" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "82 Ill. 2d 331", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5476196 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "337" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/82/0331-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2971696 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "287" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/62/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 Ill. 2d 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2971591 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/62/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 Ill. 2d 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5436133 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/65/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "74 Ill. 2d 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2993820 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/74/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 Ill. 2d 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2909526 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "563" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/49/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ill. 2d 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 5377927 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/36/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ill. 2d 231", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 3073291 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "234" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/78/0231-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 Ill. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2927012 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/53/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Ill. 2d 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2838999 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 Ill. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2832038 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/31/0272-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 482, "char_count": 7361, "ocr_confidence": 0.865, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.602878491892708e-07, "percentile": 0.8877944235358896 }, "sha256": "3b3defdb31b74887caa9468012309f4a10f314d680fdda05006c47bdedec20ac", "simhash": "1:cd5c219e708f618e", "word_count": 1213 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:44:05.601688+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "JEANNE GREENE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Orkin Exterminating, Inc., Appellee)." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nJeanne Greene, petitioner, sought a workmen\u2019s compensation award for the death of her husband. An arbitrator for the Industrial Commission found that the petitioner failed to prove that the injuries sustained by the decedent arose out of the employment. The claim for compensation under the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1977, ch. 48, par. 138.1 et seq.) was denied. The Industrial Commission affirmed the arbitrator\u2019s decision, and the circuit court of Kane County confirmed the decision of the Industrial Commission. The claimant has appealed directly to this court. 73 Ill. 2d R. 302(a)(2).\nBetween the hours of 4:30 a.m. and 7:30 a.m. on March 3, 1978, James Greene was assaulted and killed in the parking lot of the respondent employer, Orkin Exterminating, Inc. (Orkin), where he was employed as a service technician.\nMrs. Jeanne Greene customarily drove her husband to work. They arrived at the Orkin plant on the morning of March 3 at approximately 4:30 a.m. After leaving Greene at the Orkin plant, she proceeded to a restaurant where she worked as a cook. The decedent failed to make his usual stop between 4:50 a.m. and 5:30 a.m. at his wife\u2019s place of employment.\nThe service manager of Orkin was the first to discover the decedent\u2019s body at about 7:30 a.m. Greene had been stabbed 21 times in both the front and back. The body was lying in the snow close to the decedent\u2019s service vehicle. The vehicle was prepared for service: all of the necessary equipment and chemicals had been loaded inside the truck. The engine was running and the lights were on.\nThe interior of the truck had not been disturbed. Nothing was missing from the decedent\u2019s person. Nothing had been taken from the Orkin building. There was no indication of any forced entry into the building.\nThe Orkin plant is located in a combination residential, commercial and light-industry area in Aurora. Prior to Greene\u2019s death, two ladders had been stolen from the general vicinity of the parking lot (October 1977) and a battery had been taken from a vehicle in the parking lot (December 1977). There is no record of any previous attempted break-ins to the Orkin plant in the past 10 years.\nThe service manager, John Overstreet, testified that on rare occasions the decedent would collect up to a maximum of $50, which would be turned in at the end of the day. Greene did not usually carry money to make change for those customers who paid cash.\nThe identity of the decedent\u2019s assailant is unknown.\nThe principal issue before us is whether the Industrial Commission\u2019s conclusion that the decedent\u2019s death did not arise out of his employment with Orkin was against the manifest weight of the evidence. An injury which \u201carises out of\u201d a person\u2019s employment may be defined as one which has its origin in some risk connected with, or incidental to, the employment so that there is a causal connection between the employment and the injury. (Chmelik v. Vana (1964), 31 Ill. 2d 272.) If the injury results from a hazard to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from the employment, then it does not arise out of it. State House Inn v. Industrial Com. (1965), 32 Ill. 2d 160.\nThe petitioner incorrectly relies on Material Service Corp. v. Industrial Com. (1973), 53 Ill. 2d 429, suggesting that the arising-out-of question is one of law which may be reconsidered without deference to the Commission\u2019s decision. In Material Service Corp., an employee drowned in a waterway adjacent to her employer\u2019s parking lot. The lot sloped slightly downward toward an unprotected waterway, not separated by either barricades or guard rails, creating a hazardous situation. The employee\u2019s automobile had plunged into the waterway. The court found that the undisputed circumstantial evidence could not give rise to permissible conflicting inferences on the issue of causation. Here there exist a number of inferences not improbable, unlikely or remote which can be drawn from the circumstantial evidence. The facts give rise to reasonable conflicting inferences. This court may not discard a permissible inference drawn by the Industrial Commission because it might draw another inference from the established evidence. (Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Industrial Com. (1979), 78 Ill. 2d 231, 234.) Here the decedent\u2019s death is susceptible to the inference that it resulted from a purely personal risk, from a risk common to the public at large, or from a risk incidental to the decedent\u2019s employment. These permissible conflicting inferences present a mixed question of law and fact, and the resolution of such a question should not be disturbed unless it is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Brewster Motor Co. v. Industrial Com. (1967), 36 Ill. 2d 443.\nIt is uncontested that Greene was \u201cin the course of\u201d his employment when he arrived at Orkin and began to prepare for his daily work routine. But the fact that an injury is incurred in the course of and occurs at the place of employment is not sufficient to establish that the injury \u201carose out of\u201d employment. (Thurber v. Industrial Com. (1971), 49 Ill. 2d 561, 563.) The burden of showing further that the assault was related to a risk inherent in or incidental to the decedent\u2019s employment duties rests on the petitioner. (Laboy v. Industrial Com. (1978), 74 Ill. 2d 18; Malco, Inc. v. Industrial Com. (1976), 65 Ill. 2d 426.) The petitioner has not met the evidentiary burden of establishing that the decedent\u2019s death \u201carose out of\u201d his employment.\nIt is true that an injury resulting from an attack where reasons are not set forth in the record will not necessarily preclude recovery. (Health & Hospitals Governing Com. v. Industrial Com. (1975), 62 Ill. 2d 28.) However, it is equally true that such an observation \u201cshould not be construed as permitting an award in every instance where the record fails to unambiguously demonstrate that the motive for the assault was based on personal reasons.\u201d (Schroeter v. Industrial Com. (1976), 62 Ill. 2d 284, 287.) It is the Commission\u2019s function to consider the propriety of the award, and we will not substitute our judgment for that of the Commission unless its findings are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Eagle Discount Supermarket v. Industrial Com. (1980), 82 Ill. 2d 331, 337.\nOn March 3, 1978, the premises of Orkin remained virtually untouched. The decedent\u2019s personal belongings were intact, and nothing was missing from his service vehicle. The unidentified assailant stabbed Greene 21 times. Such a brutal killing would not appear to be necessary to effectuate any possible theft from either the Orkin plant or the decedent\u2019s person. We cannot say that the Industrial Commission\u2019s finding that the petitioner failed to prove that the injuries sustained by the decedent \u201carose out of\u201d the victim\u2019s employment was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court of Kane County.\nJudgment affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE CLARK" } ], "attorneys": [ "Ralph E. Madsen and Charles W. Clark, of Madsen & Clark, Associates, of Crystal Lake, for appellant.", "Thomas Feehan, of Thomas, Wallace, Feehan & Baron, Ltd., of Joliet, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 54149.\nJEANNE GREENE, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. (Orkin Exterminating, Inc., Appellee).\nOpinion filed November 13, 1981.\nRalph E. Madsen and Charles W. Clark, of Madsen & Clark, Associates, of Crystal Lake, for appellant.\nThomas Feehan, of Thomas, Wallace, Feehan & Baron, Ltd., of Joliet, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0001-01", "first_page_order": 11, "last_page_order": 16 }