GIBSON OIL CO. v. MANNAH

GIBSON OIL CO. v. MANNAH
1937 OK 387
70 P.2d 100
180 Okla. 451
Case Number: 26311
Decided: 06/15/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

GIBSON OIL CO. et al.
v.
MANNAH et al.

Syllabus

¶0 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION - Compensable Injury to Deliveryman of Wholesale Establishment Received in Street Traffic.
An employee in a wholesale establishment, engaged as a deliveryman and injured in traffic, is entitled to an award for an injury arising out of and in the course of his employment under a liberal interpretation as enjoined upon the courts by statutory law.
2. SAME - Law Applicable Where Employee's Work Is Integral Part of Industry Defined as Hazardous Though Work Performed in Place or Under Conditions not Inherently Hazardous.
When the work of an employee is manual or mechanical and is connected with, incident to, and an integral part of business or industry enumerated in and defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Law, such employee is both protected and bound by the provisions of said act notwithstanding the fact that such work may be performed in a room or place or under conditions not inherently hazardous. Wilson & Co. v. Musgrave, 180 Okla. 246, 68 P.2d 846.
3. SAME - Review of Awards - Question of Fact for Industrial Commission Whether Claimant Was Employee or Independent Dealer.
What state of facts is necessary to show claimant is an employee, and what state of facts is necessary to show a claimant is an independent dealer, are questions of law, but the question of which class a claimant comes within is a question of fact for the State Industrial Commission, and where the evidence going to the question is in conflict, the finding of the State Industrial Commission is conclusive and binding.

Original action in the Supreme Court by the Gibson Oil Company et al. to review an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of C.A. Mannah. Award affirmed.

Butler & Brown, for petitioners.
Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Houston W. Reeves, Asst. Atty. Gen., and B.A. Hamilton, for respondents.

RILEY, J.

¶1 The opinion in the case of Pemberton Bakery Company v. State Industrial Commission and J.M. Blancett, this day decided, 180 Okla. 446, 70 P.2d 98, is adopted as the opinion in this cause.

¶2 In this case petitioners also contend that under the evidence respondent Mannah was not an employee of the Gibson Oil Company, but was an independent dealer.

¶3 What constitutes an employee and what constitutes an independent dealer are questions of law. But into which class a claimant falls is a question of fact for the State Industrial Commission.

¶4 The evidence on this point is in conflict. In such case the finding of the Industrial Commission is conclusive and binding on this court.