PHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. BROWN

Annotate this Case

PHILLIPS PIPE LINE COMPANY v. BROWN
1956 OK 188
301 P.2d 689
Case Number: 36939
Decided: 06/05/1956
Supreme Court of Oklahoma

PHILLIPS PIPELINE COMPANY, own risk, PETITIONER,
v.
Hardy BROWN and the State of Oklahoma, RESPONDENTS.

Syllabus by the Court.

¶0 1. Under

Petition for review from the State Industrial Commission.

Original proceeding brought by Phillips Pipe Line Company, Own Risk, petitioner, to review an award of the State Industrial Commission made to claimant, Hardy Brown. Award sustained.

Rayburn L. Foster, Harry D. Turner, Bartlesville, Cecil C. Hamilton, William H. McPherson, Oklahoma City, for petitioner.

Mike foster, Oklahoma City, Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., for respondents.

BLACKBIRD, Justice.

¶1 Claimant, Hardy Brown, filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating that while employed by Phillips Pipe Line Company he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on October 12, 1954. The State Industrial Commission found claimant had sustained an accidental injury resulting in temporary disability for which he had received full payment, but ordered the payment of medical and hospital bills. This proceedings is brought by Phillips Pipe Line Company, own risk, hereinafter called petitioner, to review the award.

¶2 Claimant testified that while working for petitioner on the date in question he and two other employees were in a motor vehicle on their way to repair a pump. In stepping from the motor vehicle in which he was riding he sprained his back; that the injury to his back manifested itself at all times thereafter, and when a fellow workman asked him to hand him a piece of equipment, he was unable to move in the direction necessary to comply with the request, without pain. He was hospitalized, and an operation was performed to correct the back injury. The operation was successful. A competent physical testified that claimant sustained the injury to his spine as the result of stepping from the motor vehicle.

¶3 The single issue presented is whether the State, Industrial Commission erred as a matter of law in finding that claimant sustained an accidental injury. Petitioner does not deny that, in stepping from the motor vehicle, claimant was doing something arising out of and in the course of the employment, nor is it seriously contended that there is no competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding that in doing so claimant sustained an accidental injury resulting in disability.

¶4 In Terminal Oil Mill Co. v. Younger, 188 Okl. 316, 108 P.2d 542, 543, it is stated:

"This court on several different occasions has held
that a disability resulting from strain is
compensable, even though there were no surrounding
circumstances to increase the injury. This was the
holding in the following cases: Junior & Sooner Oil &
Gas Co. Pfalzgraf, 164 Okl. 59, 22 P.2d 911; Beck
Mining Company v. State Industrial Commission, 88
Okl. 34, 211 P. 69, 28 A.L.R. 197; Evans-Wallower
Lead Co. v. Dry, 178 Okl. 48, 61 P.2d 561; Indian
Territory Illuminating Oil Co. v. Pound, 156 Okl.
101, 9 P.2d 417; Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting
Company v. Linthicum, 168 Okl. 631, 35 P.2d 450; and,
Berger v. Reynolds, 139 Okl. 163, 282 P. 143."

¶5 In Choctaw County v. Bateman, 208 Okl. 16, 252 P.2d 465, 468, it is stated:

"The language used in all of these cases indicates
that it is the strain which constitutes the
accidental injury. If there is any usual incident or
condition it is mentioned as evidence to support the
finding as to the strain."

¶6 Petitioner concedes the binding effect of these opinions but states that in each case there has been a lifting, pulling, shoveling or other exercise incident to some work performed by the claimant and that the rule does not apply in a case where the accident happens, and the injury results, from stepping from a motor vehicle where there is no slipping, falling or other untoward event. We do not agree. If the strain comes from a physical effort in doing the work, it constitutes an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of the employment. The strain resulted from the stepping from the motor vehicle which was just as necessary as lifting, pulling or shoveling.

¶7 Petitioner cites National Biscuit Co. v. Lout, 179 Okl. 259, 65 P.2d 497; Oklahoma Leader Co. v. Wells, 147 Okl. 294, 296 P. 751; Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Eaves, 200 Okl. 21, 190 P.2d 462, among other cases.

¶8 In Liberty Glass Co. v. Harlin, Okl., 265 P.2d 1096, 1097, we said:

"* * * In each of these cases cited the court
pointed out that there was no evidence of a strain
that caused the disability. * * *"

¶9 In Stillwater Milling Co. v. Mott, 200 Okl. 562, 197 P.2d 966, we said:

"Under 85 Okl.St.Ann. _ 1 et seq., an accidental
injury is one where the injury results through some
accidental means, was unexpected and undesigned, or
may be the result of mere mischance or of
miscalculation as to the effect of voluntary action."

See, also, Clarksburg Paper Co. v. Roper, 196 Okl. 504, 166 P.2d 425.

¶10 There is competent evidence reasonably tending to support the finding that claimant sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment resulting in disability.

¶11 Award sustained.

¶12 JOHNSON, C.J., WILLIAMS, V.C.J., and DAVISON, HALLEY, JACKSON and HUNT, JJ., concur.