Winona Oil Co. v. Smithson

• Decision Date: 28 February 1922
• Docket Number: Case Number: 12448
• Citation: 209 P. 398,87 Okla. 226,1922 OK 72
• Parties: WINONA OIL CO. et al. v. SMITHSON et al.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1922 OK 72

209 P. 398

87 Okla. 226

WINONA OIL CO. et al. v. SMITHSON et al.

Case Number: 12448

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: February 28, 1922

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant -- Workmen's Compensation Law Liberally Construed.

The Workmen's Compensation Law should be construed fairly, indeed liberally, in favor of the employee. Stasmos v. State Industrial Commission et al., 80 Okla. 221, 195 P. 762.

2. Same--"Accidental Personal Injury."

Under section 1 of article 2, c. 246, Session Laws 1915, as amended by section 4 of the act of 1919, c. 14, providing compensation for disability of an injured employee "resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury, except where the injury is occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about injury to himself, * * *" held, where an employee in the course of his employment goes to a supply store to get some tools and is injured by a severe jar received in stepping off of the porch with his arms full of tools, which jar ruptures a blood vessel in the left eye causing a hemorrhage resulting in a practical loss of the eye, this constitutes an accidental personal injury as contemplated by said statute.

3. Same -- Practical Loss of Eye -- Test of Right to Compensation.

Under Workmen's Compensation Law, section 6, subd. 3, c. 246, Ssssion Laws 1915, as amended by section 9, subd. 3, c. 14, Session Laws 1919, held, where the injured employee lost all practical use of an eye as a result of an injury, such employee is entitled to compensation irrespective of the ability of the employee to continue to perform his work in which he was engaged at the time of his injury. The test as to the rights of an injured employee to receive compensation is only dependent upon such employee having received an accidental personal injury resulting in such a permanent partial disability as is provided for in the schedule of the act.

4. Same--Award--Affirmance.

Record examined, and held, that the award should be affirmed.

Original action by Winona Oil Company and Consolidated Underwriters, as petitioners, against John Clark Smithson and State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma, as respondents, to reverse and vacate award of State Industrial Commission of workmen's compensation. Award affirmed.

Moss & Howard, for petitioners.

R. E. Wood, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

KENNAMER, J.

¶1 This action was commenced in this court by Winona Oil Company and Consolidated Underwriters, as petitioners, against John Clark Smithson and State Industrial Commission, respondents, to reverse and vacate an award made on June 10, 1921, by the State Industrial Commission in favor of John Clark Smithson awarding to the respondent, John Clark Smithson, $ 18 per week for a period of 100 weeks for the loss of the use of his left eye. The essential facts as disclosed by the record are: That John Clark Smithson, on the 17th day of May, 1920, while employed by the Winona Oil Company, went to the National Supply Company store in the city of Wynona, Osage county, Okla., to get some tools for the oil company, and after getting the tools started out of the store to his car and stepped off a platform about two and one-half feet high. When the respondent, Smithson, stepped from the platform to the ground, the tools being in his arms, he received a severe jar, which caused rupture of blood vessel and hemorrhage in vitreous of left eye. The evidence of the attending physicians and of the respondent, Smithson, shows that the respondent, Smithson, for all practical purposes lost the use of his left eye, and the State Industrial Commission, upon the evidence submitted, under section 3 of the act of the Legislature of 1919, c. 14, Session Laws 1919, pages 18 and 19, awarded the respondent, Smithson, compensation for permanent partial disability for the loss of an eye. The act provides for 50 per centum of the average weekly wages as compensation; the maximum compensation under section 5 of the act being $ 18 per week. The respondent, Smithson, in this cause was receiving on the date of his injury a salary of $ 250 per month, or weekly wages of $ 62.50. The commission awarded him the maximum sum of $ 18 per week for 100 weeks.

¶2 The petitioners rely upon two propositions for the reversal of the award: First, that the injury sustained is not an accidental injury within the meaning of section 1, art. 2, of the Workman's Compensation Act of 1915, as amended by the act of 1919. Second, that if the injury is an accidental injury within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law, the respondent, Smithson, should not be compensated, for the reason no disability resulted therefrom. Counsel for the petitioners have with a great deal of ability and earnestness presented many authorities which appear to support the contentions of the petitioners. But upon an examination of the authorities cited by counsel for the petitioners, it is apparent that these authorities are construing statutes not identical with the statute under consideration. No authority by this court has been cited by counsel for the petitioners construing the Workmen's Compensation Law of Oklahoma. Counsel for the petitioners, in support of their contention that the injury compensated in this cause was not an accidental injury, rely upon section 4 of the act of the Legislature of 1919, c. 14, amending section 1 of article 2 of chapter 246, Session Laws of 1915, which in part reads as follows:

"Every employer subject to the provisions of this act shall pay, or provide as required by this act compensation according to the schedules of this article for the disability of his employee resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained by the employee arising out of and in the course of his employment, without regard to fault as a cause of such injury, except where the injury is occasioned by the willful intention of the injured employee to bring about injury to himself or to another, or where the injury results directly from the willful failure of the injured employee to use a guard or protection against accident furnished for his use pursuant to any statute or by order of the State Labor Commissioner or results directly from the intoxication of the injured employee while on duty. * * *"

¶3 In is insisted that the phrase in said section of the act, supra, "resulting from an accidental personal injury sustained," is to be construed the same as the English Compensation Act, which uses the term, "by accident," and they cite the case of Fenton v. Thorley & Company, App. Cas. 443, 72 L. J. K. 787, 89 Law Times Report 314 Times Law Report, 684, 5 W.C.C. 1, where the rule is announced as follows:

"* * * The expression of 'accident' is used in the popular and ordinary sense of the word as denoting an unlooked-for mishap, or an untoward event which is not expected or designed."

¶4 We have no fault to find with the rule defining an accident, but, applying this rule to the case at bar, we are of the opinion that the injury received by the respondent, Smithson, was accidental. We agree with counsel for petitioners that the act of the respondent, Smithson, in stepping off of the porch was not an accident, for the reason he admits that h...