Oklahoma-Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Fries
Decision Date | 03 January 1928 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 18105 |
Citation | 262 P. 1062,1928 OK 7,128 Okla. 295 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA-ARKANSAS TEL. CO. et al. v. FRIES et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation Law -- Injury "Arising Out of Employment." An injury arises out of the employment when 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. It need not have been foreseen or expected, but after the event it must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a rational consequence.
2. Same--Review of Awards--Conclusiveness of Findings of Fact. The law is now well settled in this state that, in a proceeding in this court to review an order of the State Industrial Commission, such proceeding is to review errors of law and not of fact. The finding of facts by the Industrial Commission is conclusive upon this court, and will not be reviewed by this court where there is any competent evidence in support of same.
3. Same--Right to Compensation--Manual Laborer Engaged in Clerical Work at Time of Injury. Where it is shown that an employee devotes the major portion of her time to manual or mechanical labor, and is not an employee engaged as a clerical worker exclusively, as defined in section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, chapter 61, sec. 2, Sess. Laws 1913, such employee, if otherwise entitled thereto, will be entitled to compensation even though she may have been engaged in clerical work at the immediate time of her injury.
4. Same--Award of Compensation Sustained.
Record examined; held, there is competent evidence to support the finding and judgment of the Commission.
Clayton B. Pierce and Burford, Miley & Hoffman & Burford, for petitioners.
The Attorney General, Fred Hansen, Asst. Atty. Gen., and W. H. Brown, for respondents.
¶1 This action was commenced in this court by the petitioners, Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Company and Aetna Life Insurance Company, to review an award made to Mamie Fries by the State Industrial Commission. The Industrial Commission found "that the claimant herein was in the employment of the respondent and was engaged in a hazardous occupation covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that while in the course of such employment and arising out of the same, the claimant sustained an accidental injury on the 8th day of September, 1925; that as a result of said accident claimant sustained multiple injuries and was temporarily totally disabled to the 1st day of August, 1926, * * * " and awarded claimant, Mamie Fries, the sum of $ 1,470.41 to cover reimbursement and expenditures by claimant for medical, surgical and hospital treatment, and compensation in the sum of $ 828, and continued the cause to a later date to determine extent of disability and disfigurement of claimant.
¶2 The claimant was and had been, at and prior to the date of her injury, an employee of the Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Company, her duties being that of auditor, bookkeeper, relief operator, to supervise and assist the switchboard operators, test the toll board and toll line to see that the switchboard was not overcharged with electricity, test lines generally, install fuses and do other small repair work in the absence of the regular repair man, and generally supervise the work of the exchange at Poteau, and three other towns. She testified she was on duty or subject to call at all hours, and had been an employee of the company for more than ten years; that on the morning of her injury she was in the office of the company adjoining the operator's room, and had been itemizing statements; that L. E. Thrasher, who was president and general manager of the company, came into the room where she was and began assorting toll tickets; that thereafter L. E. Carmichael, who was plant superintendent, secretary and treasurer of the respondent company, came into the room, and according to the direct testimony of the claimant, the following took place:
¶3 The testimony of the claimant was the only evidence given as to how or why the injury occurred. The physician's report shows claimant was seriously injured from a number of gunshot wounds.
¶4 The petitioners rely upon two propositions for the reversal of the award, and predicate their argument, first upon the question: "Was claimant engaged in manual or mechanical work or labor in a hazardous employment when injured?"
¶5 Section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, enumerates the occupations covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, among such being telephone lines and plants. Section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, chapter 61, sec. 2, Sess. Laws 1923, in defining "hazardous employment" reads as follows:
¶6 The 1923 Amendment (sec. 7284, Harlow's Supp. 1927) to section 7284 added the words "except employees engaged as clerical workers exclusively."
¶7 Apparently, the purpose of the amendment was to cover the class of employees who might be partly engaged in clerical work as well as manual or mechanical work or labor. The claimant here devoted the major portion or part of her time to 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.
¶8 The testimony of the claimant was that she had finished itemizing the statements at the time of the injury; that she had been called into conference with her superior officer and employer at the time of her injury. Even had the claimant been engaged in clerical work, as contended, at the time of her injury, we think such would not affect her right of recovery, provided she were not an exclusive clerical worker, as excepted under the definition of section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, at amended, supra. We observe no authority or decisions by either party construing the amended section of the statute, or a similar statute from another state. We consider the evidence as sustaining the Commission, in finding that the claimant was engaged in a hazardous occupation covered by and subject to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Law, and that the first question as propounded by petitioners must be answered in the affirmative. In view of the evidence, we think the act itself as amended warrants such conclusion without the citation of authorities on that question.
¶9 The second proposition and question necessary to a proper determination of this cause, is: "Were claimant's injuries the result of an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of her employment?"
¶10 To answer this question it might be well to divide it into three parts. First, were claimant's injuries the result of an accidental personal injury?
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State Indus. Comm'n
...Illuminating Oil Co. v. Crow, 147 Okla. 229, 296 P. 451; Motor Equipment Co. v. Stephens, 145 Okla. 156, 292 P. 63; Okla.-Ark.-Tel. Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062; Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Cates, 164 Okla. 48, 22 P.2d 347; Stasmos v. State Industrial Commission, 80 Okla. 221, 195 P......
-
Bd. of Com'Rs of Garfield Cnty. v. Sims
...the contention above made, are: Ft. Smith Air Craft Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 151 Okla. 67, 1 P.2d 682; Okla-Ark. Telephone Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062; Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066; and Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Price, 164 Okla. 120, 23......
-
Eason Oil Co. v. Neal
...court sustained an award in favor of an employee who was injured in an assault by a fellow workman. See, also, Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062; Willis v. State Industrial Commission, 78 Okla. 216, 190 P. 92. ¶9 The case of Stasmos v. State Industrial Com......
-
Patterson Steel Co. v. Bailey
...Consolidated Fuel Co., 121 Okla. 170, 249 P. 155; Allen v. Elk City Cotton Oil Co., 125 Okla. 142, 256 P. 898; Oklahoma-Arkansas Telephone Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062. ¶15 For the reasons herein stated, I concur in the conclusion reached in the opinion delivered by Mr. Justice ......