Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Davis

• Decision Date: 04 June 1935
• Docket Number: Case Number: 25851
• Citation: Stanolind Pipe Line Co. v. Davis, 47 P.2d 163, 173 Okla. 190, 1935 OK 646 (Okla. 1935)
• Parties: STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO. v. DAVIS
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1935 OK 646

47 P.2d 163

173 Okla. 190

STANOLIND PIPE LINE CO. v. DAVIS

Case Number: 25851

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: June 4, 1935

Syllabus

¶0 1.MASTER AND SERVANT - WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION LAW- Requirement That Injury Occur "in Course of" and "Arise out of" Employment.

In order for an accidental personal injury to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must have been sustained both "in the course of" the employment and "arising out of" the employment, within the meaning of section 13351, O. S. 1931.

2.SAME - "In the Course of" and "Arising out of" Defined.

In Workmen's Compensation Act the words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurred, and the words "arising out of" refer to the origin and cause of the accident and its connection with the employment.

3.SAME - Injury Caused by Act of Third Party or Extraneous Phenomenon of Nature.

Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the fact that the injury was caused by the act of some other person, or by some extraneous phenomenon of nature, does not prevent the injury from having "arisen out of" the employment, if it was caused by (1) the employer or fellow employee, or (2) the injured employee's act of protecting the employer's property, or (3) the injured employee's being placed, by the nature of his work, in a position subjecting him to a greater hazard of injury by lightning, sunstroke, storm or the like than other people in the same vicinity who are not engaged in such work; providing the other elements of liability are present.But said classification is not exclusive, and other classifications may arise if they meet the tests herein reviewed.

4.SAME - Injury From Assault by Third Party.

An assault by a third party, who is neither the employer nor a fellow employee, may cause a compensable injury under the Workmen's Compensation Act if it occurs under circumstances otherwise reasonably connected with the employment.But if the connection with the employment is lacking, then the fact that the injured employee happened to be working at the time of the injury will not in itself support a finding that it arose "out of" the employment.

5.SAME - Requisites of Injury "Arising out of" Employment.

An injury "arising out of" the employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act, must have resulted from a risk reasonably incident to the employment.There must be apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between (1) the conditions under which the work is required to be performed, and (2) the resulting injury.

6.SAME - Injury to Workman From Assault by Drunken Ex-Employees Held not Compensable.

Where workman was assaulted and injured by drunken ex-employees, who imagined he had reported their stealing gasoline, but he had not done so, and it appears that the assault was motivated entirely and exclusively by personal ill feeling, the Injury did not "arise out of" the employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's, Compensation Act.

Original action in the Supreme Court by the Stanolind Pipe Line Company to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of Tom F. Davis.Award vacated.

Clay Tallman and T.W. Arrington, for petitioner.

C.L. Andrews, for respondent Davis.

PHELPS, J.

¶1Tom F. Davis, the respondent(claimant) was employed by Stanolind Pipe Line Company as a pipe line welder.His car was standing some 200 yards from the pipe line.It being near quitting time, he left the pipe line and approached his car with a "bull plug" which he was going to take to the end of the line and insert in the open pipe and then go on home.

¶2 Three drunken men approached in another automobile, alighted therefrom and attacked claimant, striking him in the back with a hammer, resulting in a fractured backbone.The attackers had formerly been employees of petitioner but had recently been discharged.They imagined the claimant had reported them for stealing gasoline, causing their discharge, but both the petitioner and the claimant deny that he had ever informed the petitioner of said theft, or that he knew anything about it.After the attack on claimant the drunken men found the night watchmen, whom they also attacked.It does not appear that the attackers destroyed or interfered with any property belonging to petitioner.There is no evidence of any ill feeling against the petitioner on the part of the attackers, the basic cause of the fight appearing to be nothing but the combined effect of drinking and a fancied and self-manufactured grievance against the claimant.It does not appear why they attacked the night watchmen unless they also fancied the watchmen reported them for stealing gasoline.It is also uncertain, from the record, just how long they had been discharged; at any rate, they were not fellow employees.

¶3 The State Industrial Commission made an award to claimant under the Workmen's Compensation Act.In this original action by the employer to review said award, it is contended that the injury was not one "arising out of and in the course of his employment," within the meaning of section 13351, O. S. 1931.

¶4 In order for an accidental personal injury to be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must have been sustained not only "in the course of," but also "arising out of" the employment, and the two are not synonymous.The words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurred, and the words "arising out of" refer to the origin and cause of the accident and its connection with the employment.Both of these elements must exist, otherwise the injury is not compensable.Willis v. State Ind. Comm., 78 Okla. 216, 190 P. 92.The burden of proof is upon the claimant to establish the existence of both elements.Ryan v. State Ind. Comm., 128 Okla. 25, 261 P. 181.

¶5 It is unnecessary to consider the question of whether the injury was sustained "in the course of" the employment.After considering all of the Oklahoma cases on this subject, we conclude that the injury was not one "arising out of" the employment.

¶6 In Honnold's "Workmen's Compensation," vol. 1, section 101, it is said:

"The importance of distinguishing between these terms ('in the course of' and 'arising out of') arises from the fact that each represents an element essential to but not authorizing recovery of compensation without the presence of the element raised by the other.In other words, even though the injury occurred 'in the course of the employment' if it did not 'arise out of the employment,' there can be no recovery.* * * The character or quality of the accident as conveyed by the words 'out of' involves the idea that the accident is in some sense due to the employment.It must result from a risk reasonably incident to the employment."

¶7 There is little difficulty experienced in the normal, average case where the workman is injured by some act or misfortune directly connected with the employment.But trouble is often experienced on the other extreme, when the workman has been injured by reason of the act of some other person or as the result of some extraneous phenomenon of nature.

¶8 A review of the Oklahoma cases dealing with this particular subject may help to clarify the situation.We observe that on this "outer extreme"the cases in which it was held that the accident arose out of the employment all fall within one of three classes:

(1) Where the injury was sustained because of an act of the employer or a fellow employee;

(2) Where the injury was sustained while the injured employee was protecting the employer's property;

(3) Where the injury was sustained by reason of the employee's being placed, by the nature of his work, in a position or under circumstances subjecting him to a greater hazard of injury by lightning, sunstroke, storm or the like than other people in the same vicinity who are not engaged in such work; in other words, where the employment increased the danger of being injured by the lightning, sunstroke, etc.

¶9Cases in the First Group.

¶10 In Willis v. State Ind. Comm., 78 Okla. 216, 190 P. 92, it was held that the injury "arose out of" the employment where a workman who was sitting by an open fire during work hours was injured by the explosion of a dynamite cap which had been thrown into the fire by a fellow employee.The court stated, however, that if the claimant had been an active participant in such horseplay, he would not have been entitled to compensation, but that if, "while going about his duties he is a victim of another's prank, to which he is not in the least a party, he should not be denied compensation."

¶11That case was shortly followed by Stasmos v. State Ind. Comm., 80 Okla. 221, 195 P. 762, wherein an assault by a fellow employee, under the facts in that case, was held to have arisen "out of" the employment.The language in that case to the effect that "an assault by a third party, or an assault of the employer arising out of and in the course of the employment, resulting in an injury and disability, is such an injury as comes within the Workmen's Compensation Law", should not be construed to mean that an assault by a third party is compensable regardless of whether it arose out of the employment, and such is not the law.That case does not so hold; it does say, and it is true, that an assault by a third party may cause a compensable injury if under circumstances "arising out of" the employment.

¶12 In Marland Refining Co. v. Colbaugh, 110 Okla. 238, 238 P. 831, an injury sustained by the prank of a fellow employee who threw a rock at claimant, the claimant being innocent of participation in the said horseplay, was held as having arisen out of the employment.The rule of "active participant" as announced in Willis v. State Ind. Comm., supra, was reannounced.Oklahoma-Ark. Tel. Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062, held that the injury...