Oklahoma Ry. Co. v. Cannon
Decision Date | 17 December 1946 |
Docket Number | 32700. |
Citation | 176 P.2d 482,198 Okla. 65,1946 OK 354 |
Parties | OKLAHOMA RY. CO. v. CANNON et al. |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Original proceeding by Oklahoma Railway Company, employer, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission for Bill Cannon employee.
Award sustained.
Syllabus by the Court.
The finding of the State Industrial Commission that an injury sustained by an employee arose out of and in the course of his employment will not be disturbed by this court when reasonably supported by the evidence.
Richardson Shartel, Cochran & Pruet, F. M. Dudley and R. C. Jopling Jr., all of Oklahoma City, for petitioner.
W. F Smith, of Oklahoma City, for respondents.
This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of the respondent, Bill Cannon, against the petitioner, Oklahoma Railway Company, which carries its own risk. There is no question as to the nature and extent of the injury sustained. The only question presented is whether the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment of the respondent.
The State Industrial Commission found the facts as follows:
There is a conflict in the evidence on some of the material issues.
Respondent testified that he was instructed to load and unload passengers in the zones established for that purpose; that the car sought to be removed was entangled in a guy-wire and was in the loading zone, which was designated as such by a representative of the company, near the intersection of S. E. 15th and Eastern Avenue in Oklahoma City, some distance from the down town area; that the inference from respondent's testimony is that he thought he could not get the bus past the entangled car without hitting the front of it; that there were cars in front of the entangled car so that he could not pull past the entangled car and draw up beside the curb and unload passengers; that he had had one accident before and was advised by representatives of the company not to get in any more tight places; and that he had been working as an extra bus driver and had been driving no regular route and had driven this particular route but a few times. During the trial, the respondent apparently made a rough drawing of the scene of the accident, which is not in the record.
A witness for the petitioner testified that all bus drivers including respondent were instructed not to assist other vehicles unless they were involved in an accident with the bus, and that in the event cars were wrongfully parked in loading and unloading zones it was the duty of the bus drivers to call the dispatcher of the company who would either remove the vehicles or call the police and have it done. The respondent testified that he understood that the rule with reference to calling the dispatcher applied only to the down town areas because of the traffic and the importance of not permitting part of the bus to extend into the intersection while unloading and loading passengers.
Petitioner argues that, since respondent was violating instructions in helping to remove the car from the zone and was performing no service for the benefit of the petitioner, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment. In support of this argument, petitioner cites the following cases Baker v. State Industrial Commission et al., 138 Okl. 167, 280 P. 603; Farmers Gin Co. et al. v. Cooper et al., 147 Okl. 29, 294 P. 108; Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. et al. v. Lodes et al., 164 Okl. 51, 22 P.2d 361; Indian Territory Illuminating Oil Co. et al. v. Lewis et al., 165 Okl. 26, 24 P.2d 647; Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. v. Davison et al., 192 Okl. 13, 132 P.2d 937; Garrahan v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 149 Pa.Super. 1, 26...
To continue reading
Request your trial