Bowen v. McHenry

1949 OK 25, 202 P.2d 987, 201 Okla. 151, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 525
CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma
DecidedFebruary 15, 1949
DocketNo. 33591
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 1949 OK 25 (Bowen v. McHenry) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Oklahoma primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Bowen v. McHenry, 1949 OK 25, 202 P.2d 987, 201 Okla. 151, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 525 (Okla. 1949).

Opinion

JOHNSON, J.

This is an original proceeding brought in this court by Matt Bowen, who is named as doing business as Jenks Coal Company, [152]*152known as Western Coal Company, Bowen Construction Company, to review an order of the State Industrial Commission awarding compensation to respondent L. B. McHenry.

The trial commissioner before whom the case was originally heard denied compensation on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to show that respondent was in the employ of petitioner at the time he sustained his injury. The order was vacated on appeal to the commission en banc. The commission, in substance, found that claimant on the 10th day of May, 1947, while in the employ of respondent, sustained an accidental personal injury arising out of and in the course of his employment causing injury to his back which resulted in a 10 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole; that at the time of said injury, claimant’s average daily wage was sufficient to entitle him to compensation at the rate of $21 per week.

Upon the above finding the commission made an award awarding compensation against respondent in the sum of $1,050 or 50 weeks payable at the rate of $21 per week, and directed that the award be paid in a lump sum.

Petitioner in his brief asserts that the award is indefinite in that it fails to designate by name the person against whom it intended to direct the order and award. It is argued that the award is directed against the respondent; that the record is in confusion as to who constituted the respondent. It is disclosed that in the hearing before the State Industrial Commission respondent herein is referred to as claimant and Jenks Coal Company, known as Western Coal Company, Bowen Construction Company, is designated respondent. In his claim for compensation on file before the commission, respondent states that at the time he sustained his injury he was employed by the Jenks Coal Company; that thereafter an amended claim was filed making Bowen Construction Company a party to the action and a respondent therein. The evidence shows that respondent at the time he sustained his alleged injury was in the employ of Bowen Construction Company, and that the Bowen Construction Company consisted of Matt Bowen, an individual; that Matt Bowen was conducting the business in the name of Bowen Construction Company; that the Jenks Coal Company ceased to exist long prior to the date of the injury, and that from January 1, 1947, to July 1, 1947, the business was operated and conducted by Matt Bowen, doing business as Bowen Construction Company.

The award is rather indefinite in that it fails to clearly designate to whom the commission was referring in its order awarding compensation. Counsel for petitioner, however, in their brief state that since no person is designated or named in the award as respondent, Matt Bowen concluded that the order was directed again him. He filed his petition to review in this court as Matt Bowen, doing business as Jenks Coal Company, known as Western Coal Company, Bowen Construction Company.

Petitioner herein does not insist that the award should be vacated on account of this irregularity appearing therein. He, among other things, contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the commission that respondent was in the employ of petitioner at the time he sustained his injury.

The evidence shows that petitioner, Matt Bowen, doing business as Bowen Construction Company, at the date respondent sustained his injury was engaged in the business of transporting coal from a mine located in the southern part of Tulsa county to a tipple on the railroad near the town of Jenks, a distance of three miles; that petitioner entered into a contract with C. L. Cobb to haul the coal, for which he agreed to pay him 30c per ton. Cobb was the owner of several trucks and [153]*153hired and paid respondent to drive one oí the trucks, for which he agreed to pay him compensation on the basis of 50 per cent of the net profits earned by the truck driven by him.

The evidence further shows that petitioner had constructed a private road, a distance of one-fourth mile, leading from the main highway to the mine; that this road became worn and needed repairing.

On the morning of May 10, 1947, while respondent and Cobb were driving their trucks along and over this private road, they were ordered and directed by one Keno, petitioner’s foreman, to park their trucks and proceed to repair the road. In compliance with this order, respondent started working on the road, and while so engaged and while attempting to lift and carry a heavy boulder for the purpose of placing the same in a large hole which had worn into the road, he strained and hurt his back which resulted in some disability to his person.

It is the contention of petitioner that respondent was in the employ of Cobb at the time he sustained his injury rather than in his employ; that he had entered into a contract with Cobb to haul the coal on a per ton basis; that the relationship of principal and independent contractor existed between him and Cobb; that Cobb employed and paid respondent and was therefore his employee. This contention cannot be sustained. The evidence shows that petitioner at all times exercised full and complete control over both Cobb and respondent as to the time they should report to work, and the hours in which they should work; the number of trucks which should be used and, in fact, at all times directed the manner in which the work should be performed. Moreover, petitioner, Matt Bowen, testified that he reserved and retained full power to discharge respondent at any time he saw fit. The evidence is wholly insufficient to show that the relation of principal and independent contractor existed between Cobb and petitioner relative to the hauling of the coal, but on the other hand, clearly shows such relationship to be that of master and servant. State Highway Commission v. Brewer, 196 Okla. 437, 165 P. 2d 612; State Highway Commission v. Gaston, 185 Okla. 540, 94 P. 2d 915; Dierks Lumber & Coal Co. et al. v. McDaniels et al., 188 Okla. 695, 112 P. 2d 1082.

The respondent was injured while engaged in work in connection with the repairing of the road. This road was a private road and was constructed and maintained by petitioner as a means of ingress and egress to and from the mine and was used by the trucks in hauling the coal in question. Respondent was directed by petitioner’s foreman, Mr. Keno, to park his truck and work on this road, and while so working he sustained his injury. Under the circumstances, he was subject to the general employment of petitioner and at the time of his injury was engaged in repairing a road, the use of which was a necessary ' incident to the hauling of coal by petitioner.

It is further contended that the evidence is insufficient to support the finding of the commission that respondent as a result of his injury sustained a 10 per cent permanent partial disability to his body as a whole.

Respondent testified that while working on the road and while engaged in lifting a heavy boulder for the purpose of placing it in a hole which had worn in the road, he strained and hurt his back, which resulted in some disability to his person and that he has never fully recovered therefrom.

The medical testimony is in conflict as to the disability sustained by respondent as the result of his injury. Several physicians testified that he had sustained no permanent disability.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Brown v. Burkett
1988 OK 49 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1949 OK 25, 202 P.2d 987, 201 Okla. 151, 1949 Okla. LEXIS 525, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowen-v-mchenry-okla-1949.