Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Gardner
| Decision Date | 21 June 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38803,38803 |
| Citation | 353 P.2d 695,1960 OK 153 |
| Parties | GROENDYKE TRANSPORT, INC., and Truck Insurance Exchange, Petitioners, v. Frances L. GARDNER, Administratrix of the estate of James R. Gardner, Deceased, and the State Industrial Court, Respondents. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where the contract or arrangement of employment between the employer and employee was made is a question of fact, and if there is any competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Court as to where such contract or arrangement was made, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review by the Supreme Court.
2. The fact that a claimant under the Death Benefit Provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq., entitled to an award under the Workmen's Compensation Law of the State of Texas and the State of Oklahoma, obtains a settlement in an action at law against a third party in Texas for an amoung greater than the claimant would be entitled to either under the law of Texas or Oklahoma does not prevent an award under the Death Benefit Provisions of the Law in Oklahoma.
Original proceeding brought by Groendyke Transport, Inc., employer, and its insurance carrier, Truck Insurance Exchange, petitioners, to review an award made by the State Industrial Court under the death benefit provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 85 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq., to Frances L. Gardner, administratrix of the estate of James R. Gardner, deceased, claimant. Award sustained.
Robert E. Shelton, Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
William W. Grigsby, McElroy & Vaughn, Chickasha, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
Frances L. Gardner as administratrix of the estate of James R. Gardner, deceased, hereinafter called claimant, in a proceeding under the Death Benefit Provisions of 85 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq., obtained an award in the maximum amount, $13,500, due to the death of her husband, James R. Gardner, employee of Groendyke Transport, Inc., hereinafter called Groendyke, and its insurance carrier, Truck Insurance Exchange. This proceeding is brought by them as petitioners to review the award.
The record discloses that the employee was a resident of Marlow, Oklahoma, and on the 13th day of August, 1958, in Pampa, Texas, was struck by a vehicle driven by an employee of Continental-Emsco Company. On September 2, 1958, the employee died as a result of the accident. It is admitted that his death arose out of and in the course of his employment with Groendyke. Subsequent to the death and prior to the filing of the claim herein claimant filed suit and obtained a settlement in Texas for $50,000, due to the death of her husband.
Petitioners first contend the contract of employment was made in Texas for work in Texas, and the Oklahoma Industrial Commission is without jurisdiction.
The record discloses that employee was a truck driver for C. O. Jolly of Rush Springs, Oklahoma, who operated a trucking business; that Groendyke, which operates in Oklahoma, Texas and Kansas, leased from Jolly his equipment, and requested him to employ drivers to drive his trucks; that Jolly contacted decedent and on July 14, 1958, employee went to Rush Springs and took a physical examination, and the contract of employment was made by Jolly for Groendyke and employee drove a truck belonging to Jolly to Enid, Oklahoma, for the purpose of taking the truck to Perryton, Texas, to transport crude oil for Groendyke; that employee started drawing wages from Groendyke when he started driving the truck at Rush Springs to go to Enid; that the truck was prepared and equipped at the place of business of Groendyke in Enid for compliance with interstate commerce regulations. Employee then drove the truck to Perryton, Texas, and from there to the oil fields in the Panhandle of Texas and Oklahoma in the transportation of crude oil. One witness testified that most of the driving was in Texas but that most of the oil transported was obtained in Oklahoma. It is not disputed that employee was in the employ of Groendyke, from the time he left Enid and that he died from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Groendyke.
In C. & H. Transp. Co. v. Berkley, Okl., 341 P.2d 249, it is stated:
'Where the contract or arrangement of employment between the employer and employee was made is a question of fact, and if there is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding of the State Industrial Commission as to where such contract or arrangement was made, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review.'
In General Electric Co. v. Folson, Okl., 332 P.2d 950, 952, after reviewing the evidence it is stated:
'From the controlling parts of the above-described evidence, we think there can be no question but that, as a matter of fact and law, it was the intention of both Folsom and his employer that his contract of employment come into being in Oklahoma, and that is the State where it was entered into. In this connection, see Farmers Produce Co. v. McAlester Storage & Commission Co., 48 Okl. 488, 150 P. 483, L.R.A.1916A, 1297, and C. H. Parker Co. v. Exter Ref. Co., 26 Cal.App.2d 610, 79 P.2d 1114. See also cases digested in 4 Okl. Dig., 'Contracts', k147. As said in Consolidated Fuel v. Gunn, 89 Okl. 73, 213 P. 750, 751 (quoted in Clem Oil Co. v. Oliver, 106 Okl. 22, 232 P. 942, 943):
"The general rule is that a contract is deemed to be made at the place where the final assent is given."
See, also, LeFlore County Gas & Electric Co. v. Sickmann, Okl., 348 P.2d 312.
We therefore hold that the contract of employment was made in Oklahoma and the State Industrial Commission had jurisdiction.
In connection with this proposition petitioners contend it was necessary that the State Industrial Court make a specific finding to the effect that the contract was made in Oklahoma before the award can be sustained. We cannot sustain this proposition as the contract of employment was made in Oklahoma and a general finding as made by the State Industrial Court is sufficient.
Petitioners next argue that the claimant having pursued her claim at law against Continental--Emsco Company in the Courts of Texas, and having reduced this claim to a settlement judgment, this was an adjudication of her claim against Groendyke under the Texas law and she is thereby bound by the Texas laws. In support of this contention petitioners cite Art. 8307, Sec. 6a, Title 130 Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, Vernon's Ann.Civ.St. art. 8307, § 6a, which is as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Garrison v. Bechtel Corp.
...was made, an award based thereon will not be disturbed on review by the Supreme Court." The next year, in Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Gardner, 353 P.2d 695, 697 (Okla.1960), we applied the any competent evidence standard of review utilized in Berkley, to review whether an employment contract......
-
Dobson Tel. Co. v. State ex rel. Okla. Corp. Comm'n (In re Dobson Tel. Co.)
...abstract sense, but with regard to the context and that sense which best harmonizes with all other parts of the statute.Groendyke Transport Inc. v. Gardner , 1960 OK 153, ¶ 9, 353 P.2d 695, reversed on other grounds by Garrison v. Bechtel Corp ., 1995 OK 2, 16, 889 P.2d 273.C. Application o......
-
Devery Implement Co. v. J.I. Case Co.
...of Tenneco on all claims. Devery does not appeal this determination.2 See infra note 6, p 4(b).3 Devery cites Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Gardner, 353 P.2d 695, 697 (Okla.1960) for the proposition that the contract was made in North Dakota because the final assent allegedly occurred there.......
-
McNeill v. City of Tulsa, 87119
...and they must harmonize with other sections of the act to determine the purpose and intent of the legislature. Groendyke Transport Inc. v. Gardner, 353 P.2d 695 (1960). The subject matter and purpose of a statute are material to ascertaining the meaning of a word or phrase used and that lan......