{ "id": 2505608, "name": "Walter J. Cummings et al., Receivers, doing business as Chicago Surface Lines, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.-(Louis E. Soile, Defendant in Error.)", "name_abbreviation": "Cummings v. Industrial Commission", "decision_date": "1945-01-17", "docket_number": "No. 28218", "first_page": "356", "last_page": "360", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "389 Ill. 356" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill.", "id": 8772, "name": "Illinois Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "367 Ill. 241", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2577234 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/367/0241-01" ] }, { "cite": "379 Ill. 139", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2552045 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/379/0139-01" ] }, { "cite": "386 Ill. 402", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2493430 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/386/0402-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 Ill. 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2587767 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/364/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 Ill. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2416867 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/283/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "349 Ill. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2604296 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/349/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 Ill. 588", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2579850 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/366/0588-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 377, "char_count": 6334, "ocr_confidence": 0.82, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1355628963363495e-07, "percentile": 0.5772241933796141 }, "sha256": "e8bc64e04c07c48b86436a59682924ab8012153cfa8d7a8263561ca9e48c1662", "simhash": "1:5ff826632df8fb89", "word_count": 1103 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:43.220958+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Walter J. Cummings et al., Receivers, doing business as Chicago Surface Lines, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Louis E. Soile, Defendant in Error.)" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Murphy\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe arbitrator found that Louis F. Soile received an accidental injury to his right eye which arose out of and in the course of his employment by plaintiffs in error, receivers, doing business as Chicago Surface Lines. Compensation for such injury was awarded in accordance with section 8 of the' Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1943, chap. 48, par. 145.), Without the introduction of additional evidence, the Industrial Commission sustained the award and, on a certiorari hearing, the circuit court of Cook county confirmed it. The receivers\u2019 petition for writ of error was allowed and the cause is here for further review. Various questions were raised on the hearing before the arbitrator and the commission, but on this review they are restricted to the single issue as to whether the injury arose out of the employment. That Soile\u2019s injury occurred while he was in the employment of plaintiffs in error is not questioned.\nThe facts are not in dispute. The only evidence bearing upon the question presented is the testimony of Soile. He had enrolled with plaintiffs in error to take a course of three weeks\u2019 instruction to qualify him as a conductor or motorman on the Chicago Surface Lines\u2019 streetcar system. The classes of instruction were held in the Surface Lines\u2019 building located at the intersection of Clark and Division streets. There was an entrance to the building on the Clark street front and also one off Division street. Students attending such school entered the building at the Division street entrance. This entrance opened into a corridor approximately six feet wide and twelve to fifteen feet in length. A door at the opposite end of the corridor opened into a hall which extended the entire length of the building, approximately 150 feet. The classroom to which Soile was intending to go was located off the long hall.\nSoile testified that as he entered the building at the Division street entrance, he turned to close the door and as he was facing out, \u201ca draft came over and blew something in my eye.\u201d On cross-examination, he stated: \u201cI was on the inside. It got into my eye after I had the door three-quarters shut. That is when it went in. I felt a draft blow something in. This element came from there. When I went there, I was all right. When I was closing the door, I was facing the door, facing out, and that is how the draft blew right up. I felt a draft.\u201d He stated that when he opened the door at the Division street entrance, someone opened the door at the opposite end of the small corridor which led into the long hall, and that was when he felt the draft and felt something blow into his eye.\nThe day following the 'accident, a doctor treated Soile\u2019s eye and removed foreign particles from the lids. He stated that, under a high-powered glass, such particles appeared \u201clike a net of black foreign particles\u201d and, in describing its appearance when imbedded on the eyelid, said it looked \u201clike black pepper dots on water.\u201d\nWhere the facts as to the accidental injury are not in conflict as in this case, the issue as to whether it was an injury which arose out of and in the course of the employment is one of law. (Scholl v. Industrial Com. 366 Ill. 588.\nThe phrase \u201carising out of,\u201d as used in the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act, has been held to refer to the origin or the cause of the accident, while the phrase \u201cin the course of employment\u201d refers to the time, place and circumstances under which the accident occurred. (Scholl v. Industrial Com. 366 Ill. 588; Arquin v. Industrial Com. 349 Ill. 220.) An oft repeated statement of when an injury may be said to arise out of an employment is the one quoted in Mueller Construction Co. v. Industrial Board, 283 Ill. 148, and Mazursky v. Industrial Com. 364 Ill. 445. The principle announced in that quotation has been followed in many other cases.\nThe fact that an accident happens on the employer\u2019s premises is not sufficient. It must be shown that the accident had its origin in some risk connected with, or incident to, the employment, so that there is some causal relationship between the employment and the injury. Scholl v. Industrial Com. 366 Ill. 588.\nThe injury to Soile\u2019s eye occurred on his employers\u2019 premises and while he was on his way to his employment. Under the principles announced in the cases referred to, that was not sufficient to establish a compensable claim. The burden was on him to prove that the accident had its origin in some risk connected with the employment. The risk was not that both doors into the small corridor would open at the same time. The direct cause of the accident was the draft that passed through the two doors when open. The evidence does not show that there was anything in the building that could have created the draft. Soile\u2019s evidence indicates the draft was but the movement of the air on the outside and which entered when the doors were open. He testified he was closing the Division street door when the particles entered his eye, that he was \u201cfacing out,\u201d that is, toward the street, and had the door three-quarters shut when it occurred. Attention is directed to his statement that the draft \u201cblew up\u201d from which it is contended that the draft lifted the particles from the floor in the building. There is nothing in the evidence to sustain such theory.\nThe conclusion is inescapable that the accident to Soile\u2019s eye had its origin in the action of the air outside the building and that it did not arise out of a risk connected with the employment. It was a risk to which the public generally was exposed. Olson Drilling Co. v. Industrial Com. 386 Ill. 402; Schwartz v. Industrial Com. 379 Ill. 139; Great American Indemnity Co. v. Industrial Com. 367 Ill. 241.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment is reversed and the award set aside.\nJudgment reversed; award set aside.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Murphy" } ], "attorneys": [ "Frank L. Kriete, Frederick O. Floberg, and Arthur J. Donovan, (William J. Flaherty, of counsel,) all of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.", "Irving M. Greenfield, of Chicago, for defendant in error." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "(No. 28218.\nWalter J. Cummings et al., Receivers, doing business as Chicago Surface Lines, Plaintiffs in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al.\u2014(Louis E. Soile, Defendant in Error.)\nOpinion filed January 17, 1945\nRehearing denied March 19, 1945.\nFrank L. Kriete, Frederick O. Floberg, and Arthur J. Donovan, (William J. Flaherty, of counsel,) all of Chicago, for plaintiffs in error.\nIrving M. Greenfield, of Chicago, for defendant in error." }, "file_name": "0356-01", "first_page_order": 356, "last_page_order": 360 }