General Elec. Co. v. Folsom
| Decision Date | 25 November 1958 |
| Docket Number | No. 38062,38062 |
| Citation | 332 P.2d 950 |
| Parties | GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY and Electric Mutual Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Marilyn Jane FOLSOM and Marilyn Jane Folsom, Guardian of Patricia Louise Folsom and Diane Lynn Folsom, and the State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. Whether a contract is made in a foreign state or in Oklahoma is a question of law and fact to be determined from all the facts and circumstances; Evidence examined and Held: The contract of employment involved in this case was made in Oklahoma.
2. The right to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state and the obligation to pay such compensation are alike vested and fixed under and by virtue of the provisions of the law existing at the time of the injury.
Original proceeding brought by General Electric Company and its insurance carrier, Electric Mutual Insurance Company, petitioners, to review an award made by the State Industrial Commission to Marilyn Jane Folsom et al. Award sustained.
Clayton B. Pierce, John R. Couch, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
Gene Stipe, Stipe, Gossett & Stipe, McAlester, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Marilyn Jane Folsom, hereinafter called claimant, is the widow of William Robert Folsom, hereinafter called employee. He was killed in an automobile accident at Tatum, New Mexico, on November 29, 1956, while in the employ of General Electric Company, employer. An award was entered for the maximum amount under the Death Benefit Provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, 85 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq. and S.L.1955, page 485, 85 O.S.1957 Supp. § 4, allowing recovery for extraterritorial accidental injury. This proceeding is brought by the employer and its insurance carrier, Electric Mutual Insurance Company, hereinafter usually called petitioners, to review the award.
Petitioners' Propositions II and III concern the Commission's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the case, while their Proposition I is to the effect that, as to jurisdictional questions, this court does not accept as conclusive the Commission's findings of fact, but weighs the evidence and makes its own independent findings. As claimant takes no issue with the latter proposition, we will consider its correctness as conceded and deal only with Propositions II and III.
The reason petitioners give in Proposition III for the Commission's alleged lack of jurisdiction is their claim that the place, or situs, of Folsom's employment was Fort Wayne, Indiana, instead of Oklahoma. It seems to be conceded that this is governed by the place where his contract of employment was entered into. According to the undisputed evidence, Folsom was first offered the employment by a letter dated May 17, 1950, from the employer's Schenectady, New York, office, addressed to, and received by, him at Norman, Oklahoma, a few days before his graduation from the University there. Inclosed with the letter was a formal application blank, an 'Outline of Employment Procedure * * *', and what is referred to in petitioners' brief as a 'brochure' entitled: 'General Information Regarding Test Engineering Program.' The letter stated that the application form, 'when completed and returned to us, will be considered as your acceptance of our offer * * *'. Apparently, Folsom filled out the application blank and sent it to the employer's personnel office in Schenectady, inclosed in a letter dated May 28, 1950, which began: 'Here is my acceptance of your offer to join your Test Engineering Program.' Claimant contends this evidence was sufficient to support the Commission's specific finding that Folsom's employment contract 'was entered into in Oklahoma.' In support of petitioners' contention that Folsom was not employed until after he left Oklahoma and reported for work on the first job to which the employer assigned him at Fort Wayne, Indiana, they cite certain portions of the above-mentioned 'Outline' and 'brochure'. The portion of the 'brochure' is in words and figures as follows:
'The Company does not reimburse men reporting to a factory for their first Test assignment. * * *'
Pertinent portions of the 'Outline' are as follows:
* * *
* * *
* * *.'
After the employer had received his aforementioned letter, dated May 28, 1950, Folsom received from it the following letter at Ardmore, Oklahoma, which, according to the undisputed evidence, was the location of his permanent residence while attending the University and before he ever departed from Oklahoma:
'Upon arriving at Mr. Holmes' office, information will be available relative to your securing living quarters. If you would like to arrange for temporary hotel accommodations prior to your reporting date, however, we suggest you contact the Hotel Keenan or Hotel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dean v. Multiple Injury Trust Fund
...1289; Lee Way Motor Freight, Inc. v. Wilson, see note 6, infra; Apple v. State Ins. Fund, 1975 OK 88, ¶ 10, 540 P.2d 545; General Elec. Co. v. Folsom, 1958 OK 279, ¶ 8, 332 P.2d 950; Washabaugh v. Bartlett Collins Glass Co., 1936 OK 294, ¶ 0, 57 P.2d 1162; Pine v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1925 ......
-
Garrison v. Bechtel Corp.
... ... 13 ... After the 1955 amendment, this Court, in General Elec. Co. v. Folsom, 332 P.2d 950, 953 (Okla.1958), first reviewed an award of the Workers' ... ...
- Williams Cos. v. Dunkelgod
-
Williams Cos. v. Dunkelgod
...District No. 89 v. McReynolds, 1974 OK 136, 528 P.2d 313;Spec. Ind. Fund v. Michaud, 1959 OK 203, 345 P.2d 891; and General Electric Co. v. Folsom, 1958 OK 279, 332 P.2d 950. The date of injury or death also determines the compensation allowed a particular claimant. Independent School Distr......