Hieronimus v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
| Decision Date | 04 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 43285,43285 |
| Parties | Clarence HIERONIMUS, Petitioner, v. PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY and the State Industrial Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Gene Stipe, McAlester, for petitioner.
Wm. J. Zeman, Lloyd G. Minter, Bartlesville, Edward J. Fauss, Richard Stewart, Oklahoma City, G. T. Blankenship, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
This is an original proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Court denying the petitioner, claimant below, benefits under the provisions of the Oklahoma Workmen's Compensation Act.
Parties will be referred to as they appeared before the State Industrial Court. Respondent is engaged in the petroleum business operating gasoline plants, refineries and other plants connected with the manufacture of petroleum products. The general business of the respondent is 'hazardous' within the provisions of 85 O.S.1961, §§ 2 and 3 of the Oklahoma Workmen's Compensation Act. Respondent carried its own risk as an employer and therefore the theory of estoppel provided for in 85 O.S.1961, § 65.2 is not involved.
In denying the compensation claim of the claimant, the State Industrial Court held:
'That claimant was not engaged in a hazardous occupation under the Oklahoma Workmen's Compensation Law at the time of his injury alleged herein, and claimant's claim should be denied for lack of jurisdiction of this Court.'
Claimant contends that the order of the State Industrial Court is not sustained by the evidence and is contrary to the evidence. The solution of the contention presented requires a review of the factual situation presented as shown by evidence submitted at the trial.
Claimant testified at the time of the alleged injury he was employed by respondent as Mid-Continent Region Gasoline Operations Superintendent and supervisor of respondent's gasoline operations and plants. His duties required visiting each plant one or more times each week for the purpose of supervising operation of the plant. When he was visiting the plants claimant wore a hard or safety hat required by respondent's safety regulations. If an emergency arose during a plant visit he would voluntarily perform simple acts of manual labor. Such acts had been performed on four occasions prior to date of the accident. Admittedly performance of manual labor was not part of his regular duties, and no official of respondent company had required him to perform manual labor.
Sometime prior to the date of the alleged accident a plant operated by respondent known as the Bradley plant near Lindsay, Oklahoma, was damaged by fire and claimant was supervising the rebuilding of the plant. A few days prior to the date of the alleged accident claimant's immediate supervisor suggested that he 'go to Lindsay to look into this rebuilding and reconstruction of the Bradley plant.'
Claimant testified on the day of the accident his wife drove him to pick up a company car assigned to him. He secured the company car and started to drive to Lindsay 'to look into' the work being done in reconstructing respondent's plant. He was wearing a 'hard hat' and work clothing. At the intersection of Twelfth Street and May Avenue, Oklahoma City, his car was involved in a collision with another automobile. Claimant sustained injuries in the collision and was confined in the hospital for about seven days. Claimant returned to work for the respondent on the 8th day after the accident.
Claimant's immediate supervisor testified claimant's duties were supervising, and he was not required to perform manual labor. If manual labor was required it was claimant's duty to assign the work to others under his supervision. At no time had claimant been directed to perform manual labor. Work summaries of the claimant were submitted in evidence. No references are made in these summaries to claimant's having been required to perform, or having performed, manual labor.
We have held in several cases that to secure benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act an insured workman must, at time of injury, be engaged not only in a hazardous employment but also in the performance of manual or mechanical work or labor. Enid Sand & Gravel Co. v. Magruder, 148 Okl. 67, 297 p. 271; McQuiston v. Sun Co., 134 Okl. 298, 272 p. 1016; Terminal Oil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huffman v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...cases in which travel by automobile on company business was held not to be a "hazardous" activity, see, e. g., Hieronimus v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 460 P.2d 944 (Okl.1969); In re Foree, 289 P.2d 649 (Okl.1955), and an airplane crash case in which a commercial pilot was held not to be engag......
-
Hissom Memorial Center v. Robinson, 44176
...beginning with the word 'attendants', and referring to the cases of Rhoton v. City of Norman, Okl., 466 P.2d 948; Hieronimus v. Phillips Petroleum Co., Ok., 460 P.2d 944; Board of Ed., Ind., Sch. Dist. No. 1, Tulsa v. Wright, Okl., 460 P.2d 422; Holsey Appliance Company v. Burrow, Okl., 281......
-
International SPA v. Jones
...The test applied is not what an employee did on other occasions, but what he was doing at time of alleged injury. Hieronimus v. Phillips Pet. Co., 460 P.2d 944 (Okl.1969). Whether injury arose out of and in course of employment ordinarily is a question of fact for State Industrial Court. Ho......
-
Marshall v. Independent School Dist. No. One, Tulsa County, 44286
...injured in one of the employments enumerated in and defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Act. In Hieronimus v. Phillips Petroleum Company, Okl., 460 P.2d 944 (1969) the claimant was driving a company car to check one of his employer's plants at another city, when he sustained ......