Hill-Luthy Co. v. Industrial Commission

103 N.E.2d 605 (1952)

Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
H
From our private database of 46,200+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Hill-Luthy Co. v. Industrial Commission

Illinois Supreme Court
103 N.E.2d 605 (1952)

Facts

Arthur Rumple (plaintiff) was employed by Hill-Luthy Co. (Hill-Luthy) (defendant) to deliver and install water tanks for Hill-Luthy’s customers. On July 31, 1947, after Rumple finished a delivery, he returned to his delivery truck and tried to light a cigarette before driving to his next stop. However, when Rumple struck the match, the burning match head flew off and hit Rumple in the eye. Rumple ultimately lost his eye and sought workers’-compensation benefits, asserting that the accident arose out of and in the course of his employment. An arbitrator awarded compensation, and the Industrial Commission (plaintiff) affirmed. However, a state circuit court set aside the commission’s decision after finding that the accident did not arise out of Rumple’s employment. Rumple appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning ()

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 790,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,200 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Workers' Compensation

Key Terms