Dunn v. Public Service Co. of Okl.
| Citation | 487 P.2d 711 |
| Decision Date | 20 July 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 43286,43286 |
| Parties | Freddie F. DUNN, Plaintiff in Error, v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAHOMA, Defendant in Error. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Oklahoma |
Syllabus by the Court
Liability for negligence of the principal employer under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act of this State providing compensation for injuries to an employee of an independent contractor performing hazardous work in the course of his employment which was necessarily connected with, and an integral part of the business of the principal employer, is exclusive and such employee is without right to maintain action in tort against the principal employer on account of such injuries. 85 O.S.1961, §§ 11, 12 and 44.
Appeal from the District Court of Tulsa County; Raymond W. Graham, Judge.
Action in tort by Freddie F. Dunn against public Service Company, a domestic corporation, for personal injuries. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
Robert P. Kelly, Bruce W. Gambill, Pawhuska, for plaintiff in error.
Robert L. Lawrence, Floyd L. Walker, George A. Farrar, and Walker, Iverson & Farrar, Tulsa, for defendant in error.
The plaintiff Freddie F. Dunn filed his action in tort against the defendant Public Service Company of Oklahoma, a domestic corporation, wherein plaintiff prayed for a sizeable amount in damages for personal injuries allegedly resulting from the negligent acts of defendant.
The trial court sustained defendant's motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff has appealed.
The facts are not in dispute. The interpretation of the facts is the determinative question.
The facts are as follows:
1. The defendant is a public utility company; that it owns electric supply lines within the State; that it generates electricity for sale to its customers; that it repairs and maintains the electric lines owned by it.
2. That the injuries described in plaintiff's petition arose out of and in the course of and within the scope of plaintiff's hazardous employment by L. E. Myers Company.
3. That L. E. Myers was an independent contractor of defendant. The work to be performed was the necessary relocation of existing electric power lines to make way for the construction of Crosstown Expressway in Tulsa, Oklahoma. L. E. Myers had provided a Workmen's Compensation policy covering plaintiff and other workmen employed on the project.
4. That plaintiff's employer L. E. Myers Company was engaged by defendant to move and relocate the electric supply lines; that it was in the course of moving and relocating such lines that plaintiff sustained the injuries described in his petition, allegedly caused by the negligence of defendant.
5. The defendant and L. E. Myers Company were both engaged in a hazardous employment and subject to the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The trial court held as a matter of law that the work which plaintiff was doing was an integral part of, necessarily connected with, and incident to the business of defendant and that defendant was a principal employer under 85 O.S.1961, §§ 11 and 12, where its only liability was contingent liability under the Workmen's Compensation Statutes and not as a third party tort feasor. The trial court predicated its decision on application of Burk v. Cities Service Oil Co., 10 Cir., 266 F.2d 433, and Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co. v. Wilkerson, 200 Okl. 335, 193 P.2d 586.
We are of the opinion that the reasoning set forth in Burk and Mid-Continent Pipe Line Co., supra, is decisive of the issues presently presented.
The sole issue to be determined is whether under the facts defendant was a principal employer under the meaning of Title 85 O.S.1961, §§ 11, 12 and 44 (Workmen's Compensation Act) and not liable to an employee of its contractor, L. E. Myers, in a suit at common law, or whether defendant was a third party and subject to such a suit.
The above cases stand for the rule that liability for negligence of the principal employer under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act of this State providing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huffman v. Mobil Oil Corp.
...in which the employee was engaged to be an "integral and necessary" part of the principal employer's business. Dunn v. Public Service Co. of Okl., 487 P.2d 711 (Okl.1971); Aycox v. Pepsi Cola Bottling Co., 331 P.2d 367 (Okl.1958); Amerada Petroleum Corp. v. Vaughan, 200 Okl. 226, 192 P.2d 6......
-
Snowden v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co.
...Assn. v. Bramer, 31 Colo. App. 134, 500 P.2d 821 (1972); Ashcraft v. Montana Power Co., 480 P.2d 812 (Mont. 1971); Dunn v. Public Service Co. of Okla., 487 P.2d 711 (Okl.1971); Lessley v. Kansas Power & Light Co., 171 Kan. 197, 231 P.2d 239 The motions to dismiss the plaintiffs' actions are......
-
Murphy v. Chickasha Mobile Homes, Inc.
...v. Martin, Okl., 541 P.2d 841 (1975); moving and relocating of existing power lines for hirer/public utility company, Dunn v. Public Service Co., Okl., 487 P.2d 711 (1971).6 Furnishing of labor to complete pipe-fitting work on plant construction project for hirer/oil refining company, Jordo......
-
Arrington v. Michigan-Wisconsin Pipeline Co., MICHIGAN-WISCONSIN
...District Court, 517 P.2d 795 (Okl.1973); W. P. Atkinson Enterprises, Inc. v. District Court, 516 P.2d 541 (Okl.1973); Dunn v. Public Service Co., 487 P.2d 711 (Okl.1971); Skelly Oil Co. v. District Court, 401 P.2d 526 (Okl.1964); Sumpter v. Lawton Coop. Ass'n, 384 P.2d 908 (Okl.1963); Creig......