Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Cates
Citation | 164 Okla. 48,1933 OK 307,22 P.2d 347 |
Decision Date | 09 May 1933 |
Docket Number | Case Number: 23545 |
Parties | PAWNEE ICE CREAM CO. v. CATES |
Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Injury "Arising Out of Employment."
When an employer, in a sudden fit of insanity, makes an assault upon his employee and injures him, while the latter is engaged in the work of the former at the regular place of his employment, such injury is an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of the employment within the meaning of the term as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act.
Original action in the Supreme Court by the Pawnee Ice Cream Company et al. to review award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Haskell Cates. Award affirmed.
Clayton B. Pierce, A. J. Follens, and Truman B. Rucker, for petitioners.
Charles Besly, for respondents.
¶1 J. R. Cates owned and operated the Pawnee Ice Cream Company at Pawnee, Okla. His son, Haskell Cates, claimant herein, was employed by him in an engineering capacity in this business. On December 12, 1930, the father, impelled by a sudden and violent homicidal mania, told claimant there was something wrong with the boiler in the engine room, followed claimant into that part of the plant, and assaulted claimant by striking him on the head with a hammer. Claimant was struck several blows.
¶2 Claimant lost no wages while disabled, and the only award of the Commission covered the hospital and medical bills. The employer and insurance carrier appealed from this award and will be referred to herein as petitioners. All of their contentions and arguments may be considered under their fourth assignment of error:
"The injury upon which this claim is based was not an injury 'arising out of the employment,' and the State Industrial Commission had no jurisdiction and were without authority of law to make an award against your petitioner under the Workmen's Compensation Law."
¶3 It may be said at once that petitioners admit that the injury was accidental, and arose "in the course of the employment." We have said:
Lucky-Kidd Mining Co. v. Ind. Com., 110 Okla. 27, 236 P. 600.
¶4 Therefore, the question here to be considered is: Is an accidental injury, in the course of the employment, occasioned by an assault on the employee by the employer, when insane, one arising "out of the employment? " The earliest Oklahoma case involving an assault on an employee "in the course of the employment" is Willis v. State Ind. Com., 78 Okla. 216, 190 P. 92. In that case the act of the fellow servant was treated as an assault, and this court held the injury compensable, saying:
"Where an employee, during an interval in his work, was warming himself by a fire on the premises of the employer, and was injured by the explosion of a piece of dynamite containing a cap, brought there and thrown into the fire by a fellow employee, who picked up the dynamite and threw it into the fire to see if it would explode, the injury received by the employee arose out of and in the course of his employment, under the Workmen's Compensation Law."
¶5 The next case was that of Stasmos v. State Ind. Com., 80 Okla. 221, 195 P. 762, where an employee was assaulted by a foreman while "in the course of the employment." We held:
¶6 A recent case called to our attention involving an assault by a superior or employer upon the employee is that of Okla.- Ark. Tel. Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062. In that case the employee was injured in the melee and confusion...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Devlin v. Ennis
...of premeditation, and not in a sudden fit of insanity or an unmotivated frenzied attack as in the Pawnee cases, Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Cates, 164 Okl. 48, 22 P.2d 347 and Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Price, 164 Okl. 120, 23 P.2d 168; but it was the result of imaginary or real personal grievance......
-
Smith v. State Indus. Comm'n
...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. 762; Willis v. State Industrial Commission, 78 Okla. 21......
-
Howard v. Harwood's Restaurant Co., 99318
...1097, 14 N.Y.S.2d 654 (App.Div.1939); Herman v. Quick, 281 App.Div. 784, 118 N.Y.S.2d 728 (App.Div.1953); Pawnee Ice Cream Co. v. Cates, 164 Okl. 48, 22 P.2d 347 (Sup.Ct.1933). The basis of this view is akin to the 'positional or but-for' doctrine which appears, in large measure to have bee......
- Utah Dep't of Transp. v. Fpa W. Point, LLC