Sowinski v. State Indus. Com'n
| Decision Date | 20 November 1945 |
| Docket Number | 32155. |
| Citation | 169 P.2d 752,197 Okla. 240,1945 OK 315 |
| Parties | SOWINSKI v. STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied June 11, 1946.
Original proceeding by Joseph J. Sowinski, claimant, against the State Industrial Commission, Spartan Aircraft Company, employer and American Motorists Insurance Company, insurance carrier to review an order of the Commission denying claimant compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Law.
Order vacated and cause remanded.
Syllabus by the Court.
Under the provisions of 85 O.S.1941 § 3, which defines the employees of certain classes, clerical workers excluded, an instructor in an aircraft manufacturing company whose duties require him to fly aircraft is covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law.
Spillers & Spillers, of Tulsa, for petitioner.
Pierce & Rucker, Fred M. Mock, and John R. Couch, all of Oklahoma City, and Randell S. Cobb, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
On the 15th day of November, 1944, Joseph J. Sowinski, hereinafter called petitioner, filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating that while employed by the respondent, Spartan Aircraft Company, he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on July 19, 1944, when he was injured while flying a plane in connection with his duties as instructor of student pilots.
On the 22d day of March, 1945, the State Industrial Commission denied an award for the reason that the petitioner was an instructor and found therein specifically that the order granting an award should be denied because the petitioner was engaged solely as an instructor in flying and not as a mechanic. 85 O.S.1941 § 3 defines the classes of employees covered by the Workmen's Compensation Law and therein states that all employees engaged in the employments are covered, clerical workers excluded.
A number of cases have been cited by both petitioner and the respondents defining the term worker as used in the various jurisdictions under the Workmen's Compensation Law. 85 O.S.1941 § 1 et seq. Apparently for the purpose of determining this rather vexing question our legislature has seen fit, by the provisions of section 3, supra, to cover all employments and all employees listed in said employments with the exception of clerical workers. The petitioner was not a clerical worker and we have held that when the work of an employee is...
To continue reading
Request your trial