TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons

LEE WAY STAGE LINES Et Al. v. SIMMONS Et Al.

Lee Way Stage Lines v. Simmons, 1933 OK 607, 26 P.2d 905
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Oklahoma · State Highest Courts
Decided
November 14, 1933
Docket
No. 24466
Judges
Osborn, Riley, Swindall, McNeill, Bayless, Busby, Cul-Lison, Andrews, Welch
Citations
26 P.2d 9051933 OK 607166 Okla. 2031933 Okla. LEXIS 392

Opinion of the Court — Osborn

OSBORN, J.

This is' an original action in this court to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of F. J. Simmons, hereinafter referred to as claimant, against Lee Way Stage Lines, hereinafter referred to as petitioner.

Petitioner operated a bus line under a class “A” permit from the Corporation Commission. An office was maintained at Clinton, Okla., and claimant was employed to perform a variety of duties. He drove a taxicab, sold tickets, answered the telephone, and assisted passengers with their baggage. The record shows that the claimant was the only employee in and around the station after five o’clock p. m., and he looked after the business until about three o’clock in the morning. On the 27th day of May, 1932, about midnight, a bus caught fire in the shop. Claimant turned in the fire alarm. While attempting to put out the fire, his clothing-caught fire, and his left leg was badly burned.

After a hearing, the Commission made an award for temporary total disability and a 20 per cent, permanent partial disability to the left foot.

The only contention raised here is that the Commission was without jurisdiction to make an award since claimant’s employment did not come within the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

It is conceded that a class “A” motor carrier is not within the terms of the act and the same is true regarding claimant’s employment as a taxicab driver.

Claimant relies upon the fact that in connection with the operation of the bus line, petitioner operated a garage in which there was an air compressor, a valve grinder machine, and a reboring machine operated by electric power, constituting the same a workshop in which power-driven machinery is used; that in addition to the duties above enumerated, it was also his duty to wash, grease, and do- minor repair work on the busses, and that his work was done in the workshop where the machinery was used. It appears that the bus which caught fire was in the shop at that time.

In the case of Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 153 Okla. 301 , 5 P. (2d) 1066 , it was held that an employer may conduct different departments of business, some of which are within the provisions of the act and some of which are not. The court therein held that although a retail meat market, as such, is not a hazardous employment, yet when a power-driven meat grinder is used therein, it becomes a workshop and is within the provisions of the act. The following statement is found in the body of the opinion:

“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 *204 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.”

It would serve no useful purpose to reiterate the discussion ip, the cases above cited. It is apparent that claimant, while performing the regular and ordinary duties of his employment in the workshop, is covered by the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act. At the time of the injury he was the only employee on duty. While engaged in the performance of an extrahazardous duty within the workshop, he was injured. It would be an anomaly to say that in the performance of his ordinary duties therein, he would be covered by the act and not covered in the performance of a duty devolving upon him by virtue of his employment which involved an extrahazardous risk to his person. It is clear that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and occurred at a place where the employee was reasonably required to be in fulfilling the duties of his employment. Ft. Smith Aircraft Co. v. State Industrial Commission, supra.

The award of the Commission is sustained.

RILEY, C. J., and SWINDALL, McNEILL, BAYLESS, and BUSBY, JJ., concur. CUL-LISON, V. C. J., and ANDREWS and WELCH, JJ., absent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1934: 11937: 31938: 21939: 11940: 11941: 11955: 119342026peak 1937 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Berry v. Johnson1938 OK 610, 87 P.2d 1082 · Dissent
  2. Wilson Co., Inc. v. Musgrave1937 OK 300, 68 P.2d 846
  3. Sims v. St. Anthony Hospital1937 OK 443, 69 P.2d 1040
  4. Burrows v. State Industrial Commission1941 OK 62, 111 P.2d 175
  5. Chatham v. Arrow Drilling Co.1938 OK 157, 80 P.2d 944
  6. Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Voss1940 OK 337, 105 P.2d 218

Most recent

  1. BD. OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF TULSA CTY. v. Horne1955 OK 270, 288 P.2d 406
  2. Burrows v. State Industrial Commission1941 OK 62, 111 P.2d 175
  3. Oklahoma Railway Co. v. Voss1940 OK 337, 105 P.2d 218
  4. Oklahoma Power & Water Co. v. State Industrial Commission1939 OK 45, 87 P.2d 969
  5. Berry v. Johnson1938 OK 610, 87 P.2d 1082 · Dissent
  6. Chatham v. Arrow Drilling Co.1938 OK 157, 80 P.2d 944

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 7

DepthCaseCited by
Okla.-Ark. Tel. Co. v. Fries, 1928 OK 7, 262 P. 1062 38
Okmulgee Democrat Pub Co. v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1922 OK 89, 206 P. 249 23
Harbour-Longmire-Pace Co. v. State Indus. Com., 1931 OK 34, 296 P. 456 22
Sunshine Food Stores v. Moorehead, 1931 OK 767, 5 P.2d 1066 19
Teague v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1925 OK 875, 240 P. 1053 9
Ft. Smith Aircraft Co. v. State Indus. Comm'n, 1931 OK 409, 1 P.2d 682 17
Chapman v. Calhoun, 1951 OK 9, 226 P.2d 974 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list