Jennings v. Kansas Power & Light Co.

• Decision Date: 05 October 1940
• Docket Number: 34875.
• Citation: 105 P.2d 882,152 Kan. 469
• Parties: JENNINGS v. KANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.
• Court: Kansas Supreme Court

105 P.2d 882

152 Kan. 469

JENNINGS v. KANSAS POWER & LIGHT CO.

No. 34875.

Supreme Court of Kansas

October 5, 1940

Syllabus by the Court.

The remedies provided by the Workmen's Compensation Law are exclusive when the workman and his employer are operating under that law and the injury complained of is one within its purview.

Where employee alleged that employer contracted with leasehold owner for the drilling of certain wells, that owner operated wells for gas and employer operated wells for oil, that owner and employer jointly used at least a part of the facilities on the leasehold, that owner of leasehold operated a road for benefit of both, and that employer directed employee to ride in a truck with a third party over road as result of which employee was injured, employer and owner of leasehold operated lease as "employers jointly" subject to compensation statutes, and employee could not maintain an action for injuries against owner but was limited to relief under Workmen's Compensation Act. Gen.St.1935, 44-503 44-507, 44-508(c, h).

1. Following Echord v. Rush, 124 Kan. 521, 261 P. 820 it is held: "The remedies provided by the workmen's compensation law are exclusive when the workman and his employer are operating under that law and the injury complained of is one within its purview." (Syl. par. 1.)

2. The allegations of a petition examined, and held to state facts showing the plaintiff's right to relief, if any, is under the workmen's compensation act.

3. The record in the above action examined, and held that the trial court correctly ruled that plaintiff's cause of action if any, arose solely under the workmen's compensation act and the district court was without jurisdiction.

Appeal from District Court, McPherson County; John G. Somers, Judge.

Action by B. E. Jennings against the Kansas Power & Light Company, a corporation, for injuries sustained while riding in a truck on a road operated by the defendant together with another. From a judgment for the defendant, the plaintiff appeals.

James L. Galle, of McPherson, William J. Wertz, Vincent F. Hiebsch Forest V. McCalley, and Milton Zacharias, all of Wichita, and J. M. Hill, of Tulsa, Okl., for appellant.

Jas. A. Cassler and L. H. Ruppenthal, both of McPherson, Clayton E. Kline, M. F. Cosgrove, Balfour S. Jeffrey, and Robert E. Russell, all of Topeka, and H. Lloyd Ericsson, of Salina, for appellee.

THIELE Justice.

Plaintiff commenced an action in the district court to recover for damages alleged to have been sustained by reason of defendant's negligence. The defendant filed a motion that the action be dismissed for the reason that plaintiff's cause of action, if any, arose solely under the workmen's compensation act and the court was without jurisdiction in the premises. The trial court treated the motion as a demurrer and sustained it and the plaintiff appeals.

Our statement of the allegations of the petition is limited to those showing whether the allegations of the petition disclose that plaintiff stood in the relation of an employee of the defendant with his rights limited to an action for compensation, or whether he was an employee of another and dissociated employer and as such entitled to maintain the action against defendant as a negligent third party.

It was alleged that on the date of the accident the defendant corporation was the owner and in control of an oil and gas lease on the Finkle farm and that it had producing wells pumping both oil and gas; that it was the owner and had control of the gas produced and that it had equipment for transporting the same; that there was a roadway leading to a boiler house and at the place where the accident occurred the roadway passed between a meter house and a slush pond. Details of the alleged negligence need not be noted. It was further alleged that prior to the date of the accident a predecessor of the defendant corporation entered into contracts with a predecessor of the Shell Petroleum Corporation with reference to the drilling of oil and gas wells on the Finkle lease and that under those contracts the defendant corporation was operating the lease for gas and the Shell Petroleum Corporation was operating for oil, and that the defendant corporation maintained the above-mentioned road for the use of both corporations.

It was further alleged that on February 24, 1937, plaintiff was an employee of the Shell Petroleum Corporation and was directed by his boss to get in a truck driven by one Bittle, an employee of the Churchill Boiler & Welding Works and to show Bittle the way and the road to the boiler house. On the way the accident occurred near the meter house, and through the alleged negligence of the defendant in the maintenance of the road and equipment, plaintiff suffered injuries for which he sought damages.

Appellant directs our attention to the rule that as against a demurrer he is entitled to have his petition liberally construed, and he argues that under his allegations the defendant corporation was operating the lease for gas and the Shell was operating it for oil and the two were independent of each other. In that connection, he directs our attention to Bittle v. Shell Petroleum Corp., 147 Kan. 227, 75 P.2d 829, which arose out of the same accident, and argues that it having been held in that case the...