Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead
| Decision Date | 08 December 1931 |
| Docket Number | Case Number: 22562 |
| Citation | 153 Okla. 301,1931 OK 767,5 P.2d 1066 |
| Parties | SUNSHINE FOOD STORES et al. v. MOOREHEAD et al. |
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
¶0 1. Master and Servant--Workmen's Compensation--Retail Meat Market Equipped With Power-Driven Meat Grinder Held Included in Statute.
A retail meat market, as such, is not a hazardous employment within the meaning of section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, Laws 1923, ch. 61, sec. 1, but when a power-driven meat grinder is used therein it becomes a workshop as defined by section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, Laws, ch. 61, sec. 2, 1923, and it is within the provisions of the act.
2. Same--Business With Some Departments Included in Act and Some not.
Under the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, an employer may conduct different departments of business, some of which are within the provisions of the act and some of which are not within the provisions of the act.
3. Same -- Employee in Workshop with Power-Driven Machinery P r o t e c t e d Though not Injured in Operation of Machinery.
An employee in a workshop where power-driven machinery is used and manual and mechanical labor exercised by way of trade is within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act, and an employee injured while employed therein and performing manual labor therein is entitled to compensation for an injury received which arose out of and in the course of his employment, although the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the operation of the power-driven machinery.
4. Same--Review of Awards--Question of Fact Whether Hazardous Employment.
Whether or not a person is employed in a hazardous employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act is a question of fact, and where there is any evidence reasonably tending to support a finding by the Industrial Commission, the same is conclusive on this court and will not be set aside on review.
Original proceeding by the Sunshine Food Stores et al. in the Supreme Court to review an award of State Industrial Commission to E. M. Moorehead. Award vacated and Industrial Commission directed to make new award in conformity with confession of error.
Hal Crouch and Phillip N. Landa, for petitioners.
Cooke & Jackson, G. G. McBride, A. L. Jeffrey, J. Berry King, Atty. Gen., and Robt. D. Crowe, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondents.
¶1 This is an original proceeding in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of the claimant, respondent herein, against the petitioner herein.
¶2 The petitioner contends:
"The employer, Sunshine Food Stores, was not engaged in a hazardous occupation covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Commission was, therefore, without jurisdiction to enter its order and award."
¶3 In support thereof the petitioner calls attention to the fact that it was engaged in the operation of a retail grocery store with a retail meat market conducted in connection therewith. In the retail meat market a hand-driven meat slicing machine and a power-driven meat grinder were used.
¶4 We agree with the petitioner that "a retail meat market, as such, is not included as one of the hazardous employments" within the provisions of section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, Laws 1923, ch. 61, sec. 1, but, when a power-driven meat grinder is used therein, it becomes a workshop as defined by section 7284, C. O. S. 1921, Laws 1923, ch. 61, sec. 2, and it is within the provisions of the act.
¶5 The record in this case shows that, as a part of the meat market business of the petitioner, meat was ground in the meat grinder with a power-driven meat grinder. The meat market, therefore, was a workshop wherein power-driven machinery was employed and manual and mechanical labor exercised by way of trade and it was within the provisions of the act.
¶6 The fact that the claimant was not injured while operating the power-driven machinery does not defeat his right of compensation. Oklahoma-Arkansas Tel. Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062. See, also, Okmulgee Democrat Pub. Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 86 Okla. 62, 206 P. 249; Teague v. State Industrial Commission, 112 Okla. 292, 240 P. 1053; Ft. Smith Aircraft Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 151 Okla. 67, 1 P.2d 682. We think that the rule stated by this court in Harbour-Longmire-Pace Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 147 Okla. 207, 296 P. 456, is controlling in this case.
¶7 The petitioner relies on the rule stated in Southwestern Grocery Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 85...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Christensen v. Sikora
...Co. (La.) 164 So. 652. The Oklahoma courts make the same distinction. Grocery Company v. Commission (Okla.) 205 P. 929; Stores v. Morehead (Okla.) 5 P.2d 1066. For respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of N. V. Kurtz of Sheridan. The respondent contends that it was established by......
-
Pinkston Hakdware Co. v. Hart, Case Number: 25031
...principal business is a retail business, there may be departments thereof Which come within the terms of the act. Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066; Harbour-Longmire-Pace Co. v. State Ind. Comm., 147 Okla. 207, 296 P. 456. ¶13 An examination of the testimony take......
-
Dalton Barnard Hardware Co. v. Gates
...retail grocery and meat market into a 'workshop where machinery is used'. This case overruled the earlier case of Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okl. 301, 5 P.2d 1066, which held that a meat market was a workshop where a power-driven meat grinder was used and that employee therein w......
-
Rorabaugh-Brown Dry Goods Co. v. Mathews
...205 P. 929; Drumright Feed Co. v. Hunt, 90 Okla. 277, 217 P. 491; Mobley v. Brown, 151 Okla. 167, 2 P.2d 1034; Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okla. 301, 5 P.2d 1066; Crown Drug Co. v. Hofstrom, 158 Okla. 27, 12 P.2d 519; J. B. Herd Hdw. Co. v. Kirby, 160 Okla. 2, 15 P.2d 823. It is ......