K. C. Auto Hotel v. Caughey

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

K. C. Auto Hotel v. Caughey

1932 OK 668, 14 P.2d 1104, 159 Okla. 204, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 604

CourtSupreme Court of Oklahoma

DecidedOctober 11, 1932

Docket22796

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 1932 OK 668 (K. C. Auto Hotel v. Caughey) 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

K. C. Auto Hotel v. Caughey, 1932 OK 668, 14 P.2d 1104, 159 Okla. 204, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 604 (Okla. 1932).

Pincite

Opinion

McNEILL, J.

This is an action to review an order of the State Industrial Commission awarding compensation to the respondent, Kenneth Caughey. The respondent was an employee of the K. C. Auto Hotel, and his duties were to stand in front of the theatre during the evening and night receiving ears from the theatre-goers and then to take them to the K. C. Auto Hotel, where they were -parked until the customers desired them, when respondent would procure the cars and return them to the customer. On January 1, 1931, the respondent while in the performance of such duties suffered an injury to his leg.

Petitioners contend that the respondent was not engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature. Section 7284, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 13350] provides:

“Where several classes or kinds of work are performed, the Commission shall classify such employment, and the provisions of this act shall apply only to such employees as are engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature.”

*205 Compensation coming within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is limited to those employees who are engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature. The driving of an automobile is not included in the act as a hazardous occupation. See Crawford v. Industrial Commission, 111 Okla. 265, 239 P. 575.

We are of the opinion that respondent was not engaged in manual or mechanical work as eoqfeeimplafted by the statute, and that the driving of an automobile under the foregoing circumstances is not a hazardous occupation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Award vacated, cau’se rema|nded, ¡with directions to dismiss respondent’s claim for compensation.

CLARK, y. C. X, and CULLISON, SWIN-DALL, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. KORNEGAY, X, dissents. LESTER, O. X, and RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent.

Note. — See under (1) annotation in 9 A. L. R. 1382.

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

McNEILL, J.

This is an action to review an order of the State Industrial Commission awarding compensation to the respondent, Kenneth Caughey. The respondent was an employee of the K. C. Auto Hotel, and his duties were to stand in front of the theatre during the evening and night receiving ears from the theatre-goers and then to take them to the K. C. Auto Hotel, where they were -parked until the customers desired them, when respondent would procure the cars and return them to the customer. On January 1, 1931, the respondent while in the performance of such duties suffered an injury to his leg.

Petitioners contend that the respondent was not engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature. Section 7284, C. O. S. 1921 [O. S. 1931, sec. 13350] provides:

“Where several classes or kinds of work are performed, the Commission shall classify such employment, and the provisions of this act shall apply only to such employees as are engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature.”

*205 Compensation coming within the terms of the Workmen’s Compensation Law is limited to those employees who are engaged in manual or mechanical labor of a hazardous nature. The driving of an automobile is not included in the act as a hazardous occupation. See Crawford v. Industrial Commission, 111 Okla. 265, 239 P. 575.

We are of the opinion that respondent was not engaged in manual or mechanical work as eoqfeeimplafted by the statute, and that the driving of an automobile under the foregoing circumstances is not a hazardous occupation within the meaning of the Workmen’s Compensation Law.

Award vacated, cau’se rema|nded, ¡with directions to dismiss respondent’s claim for compensation.

CLARK, y. C. X, and CULLISON, SWIN-DALL, and ANDREWS, JJ., concur. KORNEGAY, X, dissents. LESTER, O. X, and RILEY and HEFNER, JJ., absent.

Note. — See under (1) annotation in 9 A. L. R. 1382.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1932 OK 668, 14 P.2d 1104, 159 Okla. 204, 1932 Okla. LEXIS 604, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/k-c-auto-hotel-v-caughey-okla-1932.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack