Gypsy Oil Co. v. Keys

• Decision Date: 27 January 1931
• Docket Number: Case Number: 21311
• Parties: GYPSY OIL CO. v. KEYS et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1931 OK 13

295 P. 612

147 Okla. 148

GYPSY OIL CO. v. KEYS et al.

Case Number: 21311

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: January 27, 1931

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Classes of Industries Covered by Statute.

Section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by section 1, chapter 61, Session Laws 1923, enumerates and designates the classes of industries and business enterprises which come within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

2. Same--Motor Truck Carriers Held not Included.

Owners or operators of motor trucks hauling property for the public for compensation and authorized to operate as "motor carriers," under "class B" permits granted by the Corporation Commission under chapter 253, Session Laws of 1929, do not come within the meaning of the industries and business enterprises covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law.

Original proceeding commenced in the Supreme Court by Gypsy Oil Company to review an award by the State Industrial Commission in favor of respondent Joe Keys, and against the petitioner and respondent Howard Kimble. Reversed.

James B. Diggs, William C. Liedtke, Russell G. Lowe, and C. L. Billings, for petitioner.

D. D. Jennings, for respondent.

SWINDALL, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding brought in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. The evidence in the record shows that Howard Kimble was the owner and operator of several motor trucks under a "class B" permit issued by the Corporation Commission of the state of Oklahoma, and engaged in trucking property for the public for compensation.

¶2 In September, 1929, Howard Kimble contracted to haul two motor truck loads of building material for the Gypsy Oil Company from a lumber yard at Seminole, Okla., to the oil field near Seminole, Okla. , to be used by the Gypsy Oil Company in constructing a derrick on an oil and gas lease owned and operated by it. Joe Keys was employed by Howard Kimble to assist in hauling one of the truck loads of building material to the lease of the Gypsy Oil Company in the Seminole oil field.

¶3 On September 7, 1929, Joe Keys went to the residence of Howard Kimble, where Howard Kimble kept his trucks, to get a truck for the purpose of going to the lumber yard and loading the building material to haul the same to the oil lease of the Gypsy Oil Company. While engaged in cranking the motor truck, the same back-fired and as a result thereof Joe Keys sustained a broken wrist. Among other things, it is found by the State Industrial Commission, as follows:

"1. That claimant, on September 7, 1929, was in the employment of Howard Kimble, a subcontractor employed by the Gypsy Oil Company to do trucking; that the said Howard Kimble, as such contractor, failed to secure the payment of compensation for his employees as provided for by the Workmen's Compensation Law, and the said Gypsy Oil Company failed to require a compliance with the statute on the part of its independent contractor.

"2. That, on September 7, 1929, claimant, Joe Keys, sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with respondent herein, as a result of which said claimant was temporarily totally disabled for a period of four weeks, for which period of time he has been paid compensation.

"3. As a further result of said accidental injury claimant suffered a permanent loss of 25 per cent. disability to the forearm.

"4. That the average wage of claimant at the time of said injury was $ 5 per day.

"The Commission is of the opinion, on consideration of the foregoing facts, that claimant is entitled to compensation at the rate of $ 18 per week for a period of 50 weeks for 25 per cent. permanent disability to claimant's forearm.

"The Commission is further of the opinion that Howard Kimble is primarily liable for this compensation, and that the said Gypsy Oil Company is secondarily liable therefor."

¶4 Among other things, it is contended by the petitioner that in operating a motor truck and hauling freight for the public generally for compensation, the respondent Howard Kimble does not come within the terms and provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act.

¶5 This court, in Drumright Feed Co. v. Hunt, 90 Okla. 277, 217 P. 491, says:

"Section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, enumerates and designates the classes of industries and business enterprises which come within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law."

¶6 Now section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by section 1 of chapter 61, Session Laws of 1923, enumerates and designates the classes of industries and business enterprises which come within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law; the amended section being as follows:

"Compensation provided for in this act shall be payable for injuries sustained by employees engaged in the following hazardous employments, to wit: Factories, cotton gins, mills and

...