Mcquiston v. Sun Co.
| Decision Date | 24 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 19181 |
| Citation | 1928 OK 755,272 P. 1016,134 Okla. 298 |
| Parties | McQUISTON v. SUN COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law--Traveling Salesmen not Protected by Provisions.
The provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act apply only to such employees as are engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature, and do not extend to one whose sole employment is that of a traveling salesman.
Error from State Industrial Commission.
Action in Supreme Court to review judgment of Industrial Commission dismissing claim for Workmen's Compensation by M. C. McQuiston against the Sun Company and its insurance carrier. Affirmed.
G. W. Leopold and J. F. Brett, for petitioner.
Clayton B. Pierce, Edwin Dabney, Atty. Gen., and Ralph G. Thompson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
¶1 Claimant, M. C. McQuiston, was employed by the Sun Company as a traveling salesman of their wares, which consisted of greases, lubricants, etc. He frequently went into mills and other places where machinery was located, in order to make recommendations to his customers. His injury, however, occurred upon the streets of Muskogee, while engaged in his duties; he was struck by an automobile.
¶2 The Industrial Commission dismissed the cause on the ground of lack of jurisdiction for the claimant was not engaged in such employment as comes within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, described as hazardous.
¶3 The sole question presented by this review of the judgment rendered is that of jurisdiction.
¶4 Hazardous employment is defined by section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, as follows:
¶5 Thus the Legislature limited the operation of the Workmen's Compensation Act to employees engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature, and specifically excluded certain others. Webster's definition of "manual" and "mechanical" forecloses application of the terms to the duties of a traveling salesman. Such a man's duties are mental rather than physical.
¶6 Reliance is sought by petitioner upon Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062, but there it was said:
"The claimant here devoted the major portion or part of her time in that class of work or labor which would be termed manual or mechanical and not clerical and was an employee falling within the provisions and protection of the act."
¶7 Not so in the case at bar. Buchanan v. Echols...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Okla. Power & Water Co. v. State Indus. Comm'n
...City of Duncan v. Ray, 164 Okla. 205, 23 P.2d 694; Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. v. Spurlock, 166 Okla. 97, 26 P.2d 405; McQuiston v. Sun Co., 134 Okla. 298, 272 P. 1016; Russell Flour & Feed Co. v. Walker, 148 Okla. 164, 298 P. 291; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. State Industrial Coin., 174 Okla. ......
-
Klein v. State Indus. Comm'n
...of Duncan v. Ray, 164 Okla. 205, 23 P. [2d] 694; Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. v. Spurlock, 166 Okla. 97, 26 P. [2d] 405; McQuiston v. Sun Co., 134 Okla. 298, 272 P. 1016; Russell Flour & Feed Co. v. Walker, 148 Okla. 164, 298 P. 291; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 174 ......
-
Padfield v. Atlas Supply Co.
...the services which they render, traveling salesmen do not fall within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. McQuiston v. Sun Co., 134 Okla. 298; 272 P. 1016; Oklahoma Publishing Co. v. Molloy et al., 146 Okla. 157, 294 P. 112; Russell Flower & Feed Co. v. Walker, 148 Okla. 164, ......
-
Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Price
...engaged in such manual or mechanical work or labor as to come within the provisions of our law. Petitioners also cite McQuiston v. Sun Company, 134 Okla. 298, 272 P. 1016, but in that case the claimant was employed as a traveling salesman of the defendant in error, and it was properly held ......