PEMBERTON BAKERY v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N

PEMBERTON BAKERY v. STATE INDUS. COMM'N
1937 OK 396
70 P.2d 98
180 Okla. 446
Case Number: 27422
Decided: 06/15/1937
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Pemberton Bakery
v.
State Industrial Commission

Syllabus by the Court.

¶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 (Okl.Sup.) 68 P. (2d) 846.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by the Pemberton Bakery, employer, to vacate an award of the State Industrial Commission in favor of J. M. Blancett, claimant. Award affirmed.

Keaton, Wells, Johnston & Barnes, of Oklahoma City, and G. T. Ralls, of Coalgate, for petitioner.
Waldrep & Skinner, of Shawnee, and R. H. Mills, of Konawa, for respondents.

RILEY, Justice.

¶1 It is the view of this court that wholesale establishments are included in hazardous employments under the statute regarding Workmen's Compensation (sections 13349, 13350, O.S.1931 [85 Okl.St.Ann. §§ 2, 3]). The delivery of merchandise from wholesale establishments is an incidental part of the business so embraced within the Workmen's Compensation Law. The work of a deliveryman is hazardous by force of statute. Therefore, irrespective of decisions relied upon [Choctaw Cotton Oil Co. v. Hall, 163 Okl. 288, 21 P. (2d) 1059; Padfield v. Atlas Supply Co., 167 Okl. 364, 29 P. (2d) 958; Clinton Cotton Oil Co. v. Holdman, 174 Okl. 423, 50 P. (2d) 732; City of Duncan v. Ray, 164 Okl. 205, 23 P. (2d) 694; Southwestern Cotton Oil Co. v. Spurlock, 166 Okl. 97, 26 P. (2d) 405; McQuiston v. Sun Co., 134 Okl. 298, 272 P. 1016; Russell Flour & Feed Co. v. Walker, 148 Okl. 164, 298 P. 291; Beatrice Creamery Co. v. State Industrial Comm., 174 Okl. 101, 49 P. (2d) 1094], which have had a tendency to break down into intregral parts, businesses embraced within the act, this court is of the opinion that a liberal construction must be given the remedial legislation. It is for the court to interpret the law not to make it.

¶2 Under the rule announced in Wilson & Co. Inc., v. Musgrave (Okl.Sup.) 68 P. (2d) 846, the work of an employee performed as an integral part of a business covered by the Workmen's Compensation Act, at another place from the principal business, falls within the provisions of the act. "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."

¶3 An award was made in this case because of an injury arising out of and in the course of hazardous employment wherein a deliveryman working for a wholesale establishment was injured in the street traffic.

¶4 The award must be, and the same is, sustained.