HOLSEY APPLIANCE COMPANY v. BURROWAnnotate this Case
HOLSEY APPLIANCE COMPANY v. BURROW
1955 OK 69
281 P.2d 426
Case Number: 36467
Supreme Court of Oklahoma
HOLSEY APPLIANCE COMPANY, PETITIONER,
LUCILLE FAYE BURROW AND STATE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, RESPONDENTS.
¶0 The erection of a television antenna, under the circumstances herein presented, is "construction work: and a "hazardous employment" within the meaning of those terms as used in the Workmen's Compensation Act, Tit.
Petition for review from the State Industrial Commission.
[281 P.2d 426]
Original proceeding brought by Holsey Appliance Company, petitioner, to review [281 P.2d 427] an award of the State Industrial Commission made to Lucille Faye Burrow and another. Award sustained.
Paul Dudley, Oklahoma City, and Burton & Jones, Lawton, for petitioner.
Chas. G. Ozmun, Logan, Godlove & Cummins, Lawton, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.
¶1 This is a claim presented to the State Industrial Commission by Lucille Faye Burrow, widow, in behalf of herself and the minor child of Tommy Richard Burrow, hereinafter referred to as Burrow, who was killed by electrocution when he came in contact with a high voltage electric line while installing a television aerial or antenna on a dwelling in Lawton, Oklahoma, in the course of his employment by petitioner Holsey Appliance Company. An award was made under the Death Benefits provision of
¶2 The evidence discloses that petitioner is a Lawton retail store which sells and services radios, electric refrigerators, television sets and washing machines and the service appliances therefor. Burrow was its employee for all these purposes.
¶3 Donald Mitchell, an employee engaged in erecting the antenna at the time Burrow was killed, testified that he and Burrow were setting up or installing a 30-foot aerial or antenna when the accident occurred. He gave deceased's title as that of a "service man" for the appliance company and stated that part of his duties consisted of installing, or assisting in the installation of, electrical appliances sold by the company. In describing the particular installation in which he and deceased were engaged on the date of the fatal accident, he stated that the antenna involved was not pre-assembled and that he and deceased assembled it on the ground near the dwelling; that in such assembling the only tools they needed were ordinary wrenches and a pipe wrench; that guy wires were connected on one end to the antenna pole; that the other end of said wires was fastened to the eaves of the house with screws which are a "kind of eyelet proposition"; that in erecting the pole with the antenna on it, a bracket is also used which is screwed to the roof of the house with 2-inch screws; that this work had to be done on the roof-top; that on the day in question he and deceased had assembled the antenna and pole and were attempting to erect it on the house roof when it came into contact with an electric highline.
¶4 Petitioner argues that the award cannot be sustained because the claimant, as a retail appliance store employee, was not engaged in a "hazardous" employment within the purview of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Its counsel cites some cases to the effect that employment in a retail mercantile store is not such an employment, and other cases to support their argument that its appliance store was not a "workshop" within the meaning of
¶5 The award is sustained.
¶6 JOHNSON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and WELCH, CORN, ARNOLD and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
¶7 HALLEY, J., concurs in conclusion.