WILLIAM HIRTMAAN, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.
Case summary
Claimant, a special policeman at the Illinois State Fair Grounds, alleged he was injured while running toward a fire when he struck a stay iron. The court found the injury did not fall under the Workmen's Compensation Act and no other statute made the State liable, so the claim was denied.
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- PERSONAL INJURY-Workmen's Compensation Act-when applicable to the State. The Workmen's Compensation Act applies to the State only when it is engaged in some of the enterprises declared by section 3 of that Act to be extra hazardous.
- SAME-when award will be denied. One employed as a special policeman or watchman at Illinois State Fair Grounds is not engaged in extra hazardous occupation and if injured while so employed no award will be made under Workmen's Compensation Act.
The claimant, William Hirtman, was employed as a special policeman or watchman at the Illinois State Fair Grounds in Springfield. He alleges that he was injured while in the performance of his duties on the night of July 20, 1927.
In making his rounds on what was called the West Boat about nine o'clock at night he noticed a fire near the grandstand and a large wooden toilet which was about three blocks away from where the claimant was at the time. He started to run toward the fire and as he did so he ran into a stay iron which was part of the equipment used by a wrecking company then employed in wrecking the old grandstand. His left leg struck the stay iron on the front or interior side of the leg between the knee and ankle. The wounded portion was cut about four inches in length and about a quarter of an inch wide and bled after the injury.
At the time of the accident the claimant was 63 years of age.
From the evidence submitted there is no doubt that the claimant was injured in the manner claimed. However, there is grave doubt as to the results of the injury. There does not seem to be any temporary total disability nor any permanent partial disability resulting from this injury.
It is clear that the accident does not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act because the claimant was not engaged in one of the extra-hazardous occupations enumerated in Section 3 of this Act. As the injury does not come within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act and there is no other statute making the State liable for injuries received by employees; there is not any legal liability on the part of the State to pay the claimant compensation for his injuries.
The claim is therefore denied and the cause dismissed.