AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. v. STRICKLIN

AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP. v. STRICKLIN
1933 OK 393
23 P.2d 162
164 Okla. 131
Case Number: 20794
Decided: 06/20/1933
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

AMERADA PETROLEUM CORP.
v.
STRICKLIN

Syllabus

¶0 1. Master and Servant--Jurisdiction of District Court in Action Against Corporation on Claim for Medical Services Rendered Employee.
The district courts have jurisdiction to determine a cause of action arising on claim for medical and hospital services rendered a corporation for the benefit of its employee. Exclusive jurisdiction in such case is not vested in the State Industrial Commission by section 7288, C. O. S. 1921 [C. O. S. 1931, sec. 13354].
2. Same--Principal and Agent--Superintendent of Gasoline Plant Held Authorized to Bind Corporation for Services Rendered by Physician to Employee.
A superintendent of a plant of a corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of gasoline, who on previous occasions had employed the physician, and such previous acts were recognized by the corporation, was authorized to bind the corporation for services rendered by a physician to an injured employee.

Appeal from District Court, Kay County; Claude Duval, Judge.

Action by H. M. Stricklin against the Amerada Petroleum Corporation. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Victor C. Mieher and R. Y. Stevenson, for plaintiff in error.
Sullivan & Sullivan and R. J. Shive, for defendant in error.

RILEY, C. J.

¶1 This is an appeal from a judgment in the sum of$ 246 in favor of H. M. Stricklin and against the Amerada Petroleum Corporation. Recovery is for medical services and hospital facilities supplied by the plaintiff below, a physician, to one Dewey Baker, an employee of appellant.

¶2 It is contended that exclusive jurisdiction to determine the cause is vested in the State Industrial Commission by section 7288, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 13354].

¶3 There is no merit in this contention. Exclusive jurisdiction in such cases is not vested in the State Industrial Commission. Section 10, art. 7, Constitution; Wilson Drilling Co. v. Beyer, 138 Okla. 248, 280 P. 846.

¶4 It is contended that the evidence did not show any authority in the agent of the defendant below to employ the plaintiff. It is our opinion that it did. A course of conduct was shown by which this authority of the agent could be and was implied. Port Huron Engine & Threshing Co. v. Ball, 30 Okla. 11, 118 P. 393.

¶5 The verdict of the jury based upon the evidence and proper instructions from the court settled this issue. Reed v. Anderson, 127 Okla. 64, 259 P. 855; Atlas Assurance Co. v. The Hub, 109 Okla. 101, 235 P. 172; Con. Flour Mills Co. v. Roberts, 123 Okla. 101, 252 P. 29; Freeman v. Junge Baking Co. (Mo.) 103 S.W. 565.

¶6 Judgment affirmed.