CAMPBELL v. ELLEDGE

CAMPBELL v. ELLEDGE
1938 OK 633
85 P.2d 412
184 Okla. 147
Case Number: 27990
Decided: 12/13/1938
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

CAMPBELL et al.
v.
ELLEDGE et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Whether Relation of Master and Servant Exists Determined From All Facts and Circumstances.
The question of whether the relation of master and servant exists is one of law to be determined from all the facts and circumstances in the case.
2. SAME - One Employed in Oil Field Work Held not Independent Contractor Where Owner's Representative Supervised Operations.
When one is employed to work in connection with removing tubing from an oil well, and is paid at the rate of $20 per diem for his services, the use of his machine, and one helper, and the owner has his representative on the job to supervise and direct the work, such person is not an independent contractor.

Appeal by Glen A. Campbell et al. from an order and award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of J.C. Elledge. Award affirmed.

Butler, Brown & Rinehart, for petitioners.
W.J. Donohue and Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

RILEY, J.

¶1 This is an original proceeding to review an award of the State Industrial Commission. This is the second time the matter has been before this court. Our first opinion is reported in 177 Okla. 601, 61 P.2d 223. Therein this court vacated the award for the reason that there was no competent evidence to sustain an award against the Campbell Oil Company. Now the award has been reentered on the same evidence against Glen A. Campbell. By this proceeding he seeks to vacate the award and, among other things, alleges that at the time of the accidental injury the respondent was an independent contractor.

¶2 We are of the' opinion that this question will dispose of the matter, and shall limit ourselves to the discussion of it alone.

¶3 Claimant was paid $20 per them for his services, the use of his machine, and for one helper. The uncontradicted evidence is that Campbell, the employer, agreed to and did have his own representative, one Porter, on the job to supervise and direct the work.

¶4 The fact that Campbell did not carry respondent on his books as an employee did not make claimant an independent contractor. He was paid by the day for the time he worked with his machine and helper. Porter supervised operations.

¶5 From this we conclude that claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor. The commission so found, and the evidence sustains such finding.

¶6 The petition to vacate the award is denied, and the award is affirmed.