Associated Employers' Reciprocal v. State Indus. Com'n

• Decision Date: 12 July 1921
• Docket Number: 11981.
• Citation: 200 P. 174,82 Okla. 229,1921 OK 281
• Parties: ASSOCIATED EMPLOYERS' RECIPROCAL ET AL. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

200 P. 174

82 Okla. 229, 1921 OK 281

ASSOCIATED EMPLOYERS' RECIPROCAL ET AL. v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION ET AL.

No. 11981.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

July 12, 1921

Syllabus by the Court.

An employee injured in attempt to extinguish a fire which had accidentally developed on the lease where the employee was working in drawing rods from a well was injured in the "course of his employment" within the provisions of the Workingmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1915, c. 246).

An employee does not cease to be in the course of his employment merely because he is not actually engaged in doing some specifically prescribed task if in the course of his employment he does some act which he deems necessary for the benefit or interest of his employer.

Original action by Associated Employers' Reciprocal and E. L Robinson, petitioners, against State Industrial Commission and Basil D. McClain, respondents, to reverse award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of Basil D. McClain. Affirmed.

Twyford & Smith, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Walter P. Bauer, of Tulsa, for respondents.

KENNAMER J.

This is an original action commenced in this court seeking to reverse an award made by the State Industrial Commission on December 4, 1920. The Associated Employers' Reciprocal and E. L Robinson, petitioners herein, seek to vacate the award made in favor of Basil D. McClain upon the ground that the award is contrary to the evidence and the law.

The record discloses about the following state of facts: That the claimant, Basil D. McClain, while employed by E. L. Robinson and working in the capacity as roustabout on the Fulsom lease, being an oil and gas lease, was injured on or about February 18, 1920. The injury appears to have happened while the claimant was fighting a fire which had developed on the lease in some grass. It appears that the claimant had been engaged in pulling the rods from well No. 10, and just after lunch at noon the claimant was at the well waiting for other hands to bring some tools, and while waiting sat down by the side of the well and dozed off to sleep; when he awakened he discovered that a fire had developed in the grass near the well. Claimant testified that the fire was within five feet of the well, and that he picked up a sack and undertook to extinguish the same; in fighting the fire he burned his hands and in some way caught on fire; that he ran to a near house for help.

There appears to be no dispute about the claimant being injured. Upon a hearing of the claimant's claim for compensation the Industrial Commission made an award directing the petitioners herein to pay the claimant the sum of $15 per week during disability.

Counsel for the petitioners in their brief filed herein contend that the claimant is not entitled to compensation for the reason that the claimant testified that his duties as roustabout consisted of fixing the lines, pulling rods, fixing and starting the engine, and that his own testimony shows that he was not acting in the course of his duties or employment when injured. The substance of the contention is that it was none of the duties of the claimant under his employment to fight fire. A casual statement of the contention demonstrates the absurdity of the contention. While it is true he was not employed to fight fire, it is obvious that he would be an unworthy servant if he stood idly by and watched his employer's property destroyed by fire without making any effort to protect it.

While the petitioners make some contention there is no evidence that the fire was upon the lease of the employer, we deem it sufficient to say that there was evidence to the effect that the fire was within five feet of the well where the claimant was engaged, and there is no merit in this contention. It is undisputed in this cause that the claimant was on the lease where his duties required him to be, that the injuries of the claimant resulted from trying to extinguish a fire that had accidentally developed on the premises, and no contention is made that the injury is the result of the willful or intentional conduct of the claimant, and we...