Oklahoma Natural Gas Corp. v. Union Bank & Trust Co. of Searcy, Ark.
| Decision Date | 05 May 1931 |
| Docket Number | 21091. |
| Parties | OKLAHOMA NATURAL GAS CORPORATION et al. v. UNION BANK & TRUST CO. OF SEARCY, ARK., et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Workman who voluntarily chose to travel to place of work on highway and was run into by automobile, did not sustain compensable injury "arising out of and in course of employment" (Comp. St. 1921, § 7285, Laws 1923, c. 61, § 3).
Where it appears that a workman has sustained an injury while traveling on a public highway from his place of residence to the place of his employment, and it further appears the workman neglected or declined to avail himself of the usual mode of transportation furnished by his employer, but voluntarily chose to employ his own means of transportation to the place of his employment, the Industrial Commission is without jurisdiction to award compensation resulting from said injury.
Employment generally begins only when employee has reached place of employment, and ceases when employee leaves (Comp. St. 1921 § 7285, Laws 1923, c. 61, § 3).
As a general rule, a man's employment does not begin until he has reached the place of his employment, and does not continue after he has left the premises of his employer.
Injury occurring on public street from causes to which other persons are likewise exposed is generally not compensable (Comp. St 1921, § 7285, Laws 1923, c. 61, § 3).
The great majority of cases discussing compensation acts similar to our act hold that an injury cannot be said to arise in or about the furtherance of the affairs of business of the employer, where it occurs upon a public street from causes to which other persons upon the street are likewise exposed. Ætna Life Insurance Co. v. Palmer (Tex. Civ. App.) 286 S.W. 283, 285.
Section 7285, C. O. S. 1921 [As amended by Laws 1923, c. 61, § 3], provides a compensable accidental injury must disclose from its circumstances the existence of two essential elements: It must have resulted "in the course of," and it must also have arisen "out of" the employment.
The testimony in the instant case carefully reviewed; held insufficient to warrant the finding that claimant's injury resulted in the course of his employment or out of his employment with his employer.
Action by the Oklahoma Natural Gas Corporation and the Ætna Life Insurance Company to review an award of Workmen's Compensation rendered in favor of J. P. Stahlle, by the State Industrial Commission.
Reversed and remanded.
F. B. Burford and Clayton B. Pierce, both of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.
S. A. Byers and Roscoe Bell, both of Oklahoma City, for respondents.
The petitioners in review will be referred to as petitioners. Respondents in review, as claimants.
May 17, 1929, claimant filed with the State Industrial Commission his claim against the petitioners, alleging that while in the employ of the petitioners on the 7th day of January, 1929, he sustained an accidental injury described as follows: "Simple and compound fractures of both lower limbs; severe contusion of trunk and head; and severe concussion of the brain," for which he prays compensation.
The usual and proper notices were given as required by law. The cause was heard January 11, 1930, at the conclusion of which the commission made the following order:
--to which ruling of the commission petitioners except and bring the case to this court for review.
It is not disputed that the claimant did sustain an accidental injury on January 7, 1929, and there is no disagreement as to the nature and extent of the injury received.
Petitioners and claimant both concede that there is but one question before this court for our determination, viz.: "Did the injury arise out of, and occur in, the course of employment?"
It will therefore be unnecessary to discuss the several assignments of error separately Having reviewed the entire record, we find the following pertinent facts:
It is the custom of petitioner gas company to furnish transportation for its workmen from its supply house located at 317 North Western street to the place of work and to return them to the supply house at the close of the work day. The supply house at 317 North Western was the usual and designated place where the workmen were directed to assemble or report for duty preparatory to being transported on road trucks from said street to the scene of their work.
On the day of the accident the gas company was engaged in extending its pipe line under Twenty-Third street at the intersection of Twenty-Third and Eastern avenue, at which place the claimant and other workmen had been working before, and were to work, on the day of the accident.
On December 7, 1929, the date of the accident, claimant did not go to No. 317 North Western street to be transported to his work, but instead boarded a street car on Broadway which carried him to Eastern avenue located in the eastern part of the city near the Fair Grounds.
When the claimant left the car line on Eastern avenue (at Eighth street) he was about fifteen blocks south of his work, namely, at the intersection of Twenty-Third and Eastern avenue.
Claimant was walking north on Eastern avenue when struck by the automobile, and had covered about one-half the distance between the end of the car line and the place of his work when the accident occurred.
Petitioners contend: That claimant did not sustain an injury "arising out of" or "in the course of" claimant's employment; that the injury complained of occurred on a public highway, at a point five or six blocks from the place, where claimant was engaged to do work for petitioners; that claimant never reached the place of employment to do the work he was engaged to do.
Section 7285, C. O. S. 1921, as amended (Laws 1923, c. 61, § 3), reads in part: "Every employer subject to the provisions of this Act shall pay, or provide as required by this Act, compensation according to the schedules of this article for the disability of his employee resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment. ***" The above section provides that an employee may be awarded compensation for an injury sustained "arising out of" and "in the course of" his employment.
To state it in common parlance: If the claimant sustained a compensable injury during the time he was actually engaged in performing the work of his employer, then and under these circumstances he would be entitled to compensation for the injury sustained. Upon the other hand, however, If the claimant was not actually engaged doing the work of his employer, but was engaged in work or performing other acts of his own choosing at the time he was injured, then and under these circumstances he could not recover compensation from his employer.
These two phrases, "arising out of" and "in the course of" his employment, should be considered together. Both of them are essential elements or conditions that must exist before the employer can be held liable for compensation for an injury sustained by an employee.
In...
To continue reading
Request your trial