Indian Terr. Illuminating Oil Co. v. Lewis

• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WELCH, J.
• Citation: Indian Terr. Illuminating Oil Co. v. Lewis, 1933 OK 378, 24 P.2d 647, 165 Okla. 26 (Okla. 1933)
• Decision Date: 13 June 1933
• Docket Number: Case Number: 23458
• Parties: INDIAN TERR. ILLUMINATING OIL CO. v. LEWIS

1933 OK 378

24 P.2d 647

165 Okla. 26

INDIAN TERR. ILLUMINATING OIL CO. v. LEWIS

Case Number: 23458

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 13, 1933

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Essential That Injury Occur in Course of and Arise out of Employment.

Under Comp. Stat. 1921, sec. 7285, a compensable accidental injury must disclose from its circumstances the existence of two essential elements: It must have resulted in the course of employment and it must also have arisen out of the employment. The absence of either of these essential elements destroys the application thereto of the beneficent provisions of the Compensation Law.

2. Same--"Arising out of" and "in Course of" Distinguished.

As used in the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, the terms 'arising out of" and "in the course of" are not synonymous, but are conjunctive terms; the words "out of" referring to the origin and cause of the action, and the words "in the course of" to the time, place, and circumstances under which it occurred.

3. Same--Burden of Proof Upon Claimant.

Before a claimant is entitled to an award of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, he must sustain, by competent evidence, the burden of proving that the injury complained of was accidental, and that it arose out of and in the course of his employment.

4. Same--When Injury "Arises out of" Employment.

An injury does not arise out of the employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, unless it results from a risk reasonably incident to the employment, and unless there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury.

5. Same--Injury to Oil Field Worker From Being Shot by Robber Held not Compensable.

Record examined, and held, that the evidence in this case fails to disclose that claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Action by the Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Company and its insurance carrier to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Cleve Lewis. Award vacated, with instructions to the State Industrial Commission to dismiss the claim.

Pierce, Follens & Rucker, for petitioners.

Foster & Roper and Herman Merson, for respondent.

WELCH, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission, wherein the employer and insurance carrier are petitioners, and the claimant and State Industrial Commission are respondents.

¶2 On December 31, 1930, the respondent, while employed by petitioner as an "oil switcher," his duties being that of gauging the flow of oil from producing wells on the lease belonging to petitioner and seeing that the oil went into the tanks and that the wells were making what they should, and that everything was all right on the lease. While he was engaged in the performance of such duties, and at about 11:30 or 11:45 p. m. on the night of December 31, 1930, a man appeared at the window of the employer's building on the lease in which claimant was working in the preparation of his reports, and commanded him to stick up his hands, and about the same time shot the claimant in the leg. The man who did the shooting had a handkerchief or rag over his face, and immediately after shooting claimant he came into the building with a companion, and the two bandits proceeded to search the persons of claimant and a fellow worker who was in the building at the time, at the point of a pistol, inquiring whether or not they had any money and threatening them. It appears the building in which the robbery occurred was used to house the boilers and pumping machinery of the employer, and the claimant had his bunk therein. It appears from the testimony that the bandits obtained no money from either victim, and took no property whatever save a pair of house shoes belonging to claimant and a package of cigarettes. There is no testimony that any effort was made to disturb or obtain any property belonging to the employer, nor was there any such property taken or disturbed. There is no evidence of any kind that the employer customarily kept any property of peculiar value at the place which might in any way be an inducement to robbery; only the usual tools, pipes, machinery, etc., customarily used in the operation of an oil lease were kept upon the premises.

¶3 The only question presented by this proceeding is whether or not the accident arose out of and in the course of employment.

¶4 There is no dispute as to the facts, and in such case the resulting application of the undisputed facts presents a reviewable question of law. Drumright Feed Company v. Hunt, 90 Okla. 277, 217 P. 491; Farmers' Gin Company et al. v. Cooper et al., 147 Okla. 29, 294 P. 108.

¶5 In Baker v. State Industrial Commission, 138 Okla. 167, 280 P. 603, this court held in section 1 of the syllabus as follows:

"Under Comp. Stat. 1921, section 7285, a compensable accidental injury must disclose from its circumstances the existence of two essential elements: It must have resulted 'in the course of' employment and it must also have arisen 'out of' the employment. The absence of either of these essential elements destroys the application thereto of the beneficent provisions of the Compensation Law."

To the same effect is Farmers Gin Company et al. v. Cooper et al., supra.

¶6 In Ryan v. State Industrial Commission, 128 Okla. 25, 261 P. 181, the court in commenting upon this question said:

"The clause 'arose out of and in the course of employment' is in practically every Compensation Law that exists in the United States, as well as in the Compensation Law of England, and the identical question here

...