Reynolds v. State Indus. Acc. Commission

• Decision Date: 20 December 1932
• Citation: 16 P.2d 1105,141 Or. 197
• Parties: REYNOLDS v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

16 P.2d 1105

141 Or. 197

REYNOLDS v. STATE INDUSTRIAL ACCIDENT COMMISSION.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 20, 1932

Department 2.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Linn County; L. H. McMahan, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Charles T Reynolds to recover compensation for injuries sustained while an employee of the Valley Mills Company. From a judgment allowing compensation, the State Industrial Accident Commission appeals.

Affirmed.

Miles H. McKey, Asst. Atty. Gen. (I. H. Van Winkle, Atty. Gen., on the brief), for appellant.

Mark v Weatherford, of Albany (Weatherford & Wyatt, of Albany, on the brief), for respondent.

BEAN C.J.

This is an appeal by the State Industrial Accident Commission from a judgment allowing the respondent, Charles T. Reynolds compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

The circumstances of the case are substantially as follows: In April, 1930, Charles T. Reynolds was employed by the Valley Mills Company in Benton county to drive a logging team, and he continued the work until October 21, 1930. His wife owned a team of horses suitable for logging purposes which was in the vicinity of Grants Pass, Or. J. E. McCoy, the manager of the Valley Mills Company, had a discussion with Mr. Reynolds relative to the company hiring Mrs. Reynolds' team. On October 20, 1930, Mr. McCoy, the manager, as shown by the testimony, came to the plaintiff and stated, as testified to by Reynolds:

"A. Well, he asked me when I was going to go get that team. I told him that I couldn't go get them, that I wasn't able to. Well, then, oh-about the same time or a day or two later he come to me and asked me if I was going to get them, and I told him I had no way of getting them, and he said he thought he could fix that, and the next morning he brought me out this check.

"Q. For how much? A. Sixty dollars.

"Q. What did he say when he handed you the check? A. He told me to get a truck and go get them."

J. E. McCoy testified, in part, as follows:

"Q. Now on the day that, the day before, say two days before he went, isn't it true that you come to him and told him to go get his team, that you weren't getting enough logs in? A. Yes, I told him two or three days before to get the team we was about ready to put them on. ***

"A. We wanted the other team because we was about done trucking, the weather was such we was unable to truck, the ground was wet. ***

"Q. And you were interested and desired, your company did, to get that Mr. Reynolds team there on the job as quick as possible, weren't you? A. Yes, we wanted his team."

October 21 Mr. Reynolds left the Valley Mills Company and went to Southern Oregon to get the team to bring it to Benton county. On the way back the truck turned over, and the horses were entangled with the truck and rigging connected therewith. Reynolds was engaged in extricating the horses from the wreck, when he was struck by a passing automobile and seriously maimed and injured.

It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the court erred in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict, based on the ground that the evidence shows that the accidental injury received by Reynolds on October 23, 1930, did not arise either out of or in the course of his employment with the Valley Mills.

We agree with counsel for the commission that, to have been an employee of the Valley Mills Company while assisting in the transportation of Mrs. Reynolds' horses, it is necessary that Mr. Reynolds was working subject to the complete direction and control of the Valley Mills Company, citing section 49-1817, Oregon Code 1930, Vient v. State Industrial Accident Commission, 123 Or. 334, 262 P. 250, and several other cases.

The testimony tended to show that the company's manager desired to get the team of horses to be used by the company about the time the fall rains commenced, and directed plaintiff to get them. It was as much a service by the plaintiff for his employer as it was while he was driving a team in the immediate vicinity of the company's mill. He was under the complete control of the company when they directed him to go and get the horses. It was not necessary that the manager should be present with him all of the time while he was making the trip, but nevertheless he was under the complete control and direction of the Valley Mills Company. He was carrying out their directions,...