Switzer Advertising Co. v. White

• Decision Date: 25 March 1941
• Docket Number: 29987.
• Citation: 111 P.2d 815,188 Okla. 567,1941 OK 101
• Parties: SWITZER ADVERTISING CO. et al. v. WHITE et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

111 P.2d 815

188 Okla. 567, 1941 OK 101

SWITZER ADVERTISING CO. et al. v. WHITE et al.

No. 29987.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

March 25, 1941

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Whether an employment is one of those enumerated and defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Act is, in the absence of an admission relative thereto, to be determined from the nature of the business rather than the name under which it is being conducted, and where the facts show that the business is one embraced in those employments declared by the act to be hazardous the State Industrial Commission has jurisdiction to the same extent as if the employment was one admittedly hazardous.

2. When the work of an employee is manual or mechanical and is connected with, incident to and an integral part of a business or industry enumerated in and defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Act, such employee is entitled to claim the protection of the act, irrespective of whether his work be that of skilled, a semiskilled or a common laborer, and irrespective of the label given to his task.

Original proceeding in the Supreme Court by the Switzer Advertising Company and its insurance carrier to obtain a review of an award made by the State Industrial Commission in favor of Everett K. White, compensation claimant.

Award sustained.

Preston Peden, of Oklahoma City, for petitioners.

Reily & Reily, of Shawnee, and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This is an original proceeding in this court brought by Switzer Advertising Company, hereinafter referred to as petitioner and its insurance carrier to obtain a review of an award which was made by a trial commissioner, and on appeal affirmed by the State Industrial Commission, in favor of Everett K. White, hereinafter referred to as respondent.

On May 21, 1940, the petitioner filed with the State Industrial Commission employer's first notice of injury wherein it stated that its business was that of outdoor advertising and that on May 14, 1940, the respondent, while in its employ as a bulletin artist, had sustained an accidental personal injury in the course of his employment which had required him to quit work and to obtain medical attention which had been immediately furnished by the petitioner. Thereafter on June 1, 1940, the petitioner and its insurance carrier filed a formal denial of any and all liability. The trial commissioner conducted hearings to determine liability and extent of disability. The evidence adduced at such hearings disclosed the fact that the business of petitioner, while denominated outdoor advertising, consisted in the construction and erection of outdoor advertising signs and the renting of the space thereon to customers of such service. The respondent was employed to complete or to alter such signs, as the occasion required, by either painting thereon the original advertisement, or the advertisement of a subsequent customer at the expiration of the prior rental period, and that respondent was so engaged in altering one of said signs when he fell from a sixteen-foot scaffold and was severely injured. The evidence further showed that the signs consisted of a wooden frame work from thirty to forty feet in length and from sixteen to twenty feet in height, and that they were erected by a construction crew in the employ of the petitioner and that the respondent completed them by doing the necessary painting thereon, using scaffolding, ladders and other equipment necessary to complete such work and that while the respondent was classified and denominated as a bulletin artist he was in reality a sign painter and his services constituted an essential and an integral part of the business of the petitioner in the completion and alteration of the structures which petitioner had erected. The evidence further showed that the petitioner had provided insurance to afford the protection required by the Workmen's Compensation Act in favor of employees in industries or businesses governed thereby and which insurance included the respondent and was in force and effect at the time of the injury involved. Under the facts, as substantially narrated the trial commissioner found that the employment came within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, O.S.1931 sec. 13348 et seq., as amended, 85 Okl.St.Ann. § 1 et seq. and that respondent was such an employee as was entitled to claim the protection afforded by said act and awarded compensation for temporary total disability found to have resulted from the injury. The petitioner appealed to the State Industrial Commission en banc and from the...