The question of whether one is an independent contractor or employee must be determined by the facts peculiar to each case. Fuller White Chevrolet Co. v. Graham, Okla., 355 P.2d 557; Cities Service Oil Co. v. Powers, 189 Okla. 600, 119 P.2d 81; Barnsdall Refining Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 163 Okla. 154, 21 P.2d 749. The decisive test in determining whether one is an employee or an independent contractor is the right to control the physical details of the work.
" In Cities Service Oil Co. v. Powers, 189 Okla. 600, 119 P.2d 81, in the syllabus we held: "The question of whether one is an independent contractor or employee must be determined by the facts peculiar to each case. Barnsdall Refining Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 163 Okla. 154, 21 P.2d 749."
Petitioners first argue that claimant was an independent contractor and not an employee. We do not agree. The cases applicable are: Yellow Cab Co. v. Wills, 199 Okla. 272, 185 P.2d 689; Cities Service Oil Co. v. Powers, 189 Okla. 600, 119 P.2d 81; Dierks Lumber and Coal Co. v. McDaniel, 188 Okla. 695, 112 P.2d 1082. Claimant was hired by the employer to deliver a truck owned by the employer. The evidence discloses without substantial dispute that the relation of employer and employee existed.
In State Highway Comm. v. Gaston, 185 Okla. 540, 94 P.2d 915, it is stated the right to discharge is a strong indication tending to show the relationship of employer and employee. Other cases applying are: Liebmann Ice Co. v. Moore, 186 Okla. 216, 97 P.2d 37; Campbell v. Elledge, 184 Okla. 147, 85 P.2d 412; Cities Service Oil Co. v. Powers, 189 Okla. 600, 119 P.2d 81; Yellow Cab Co. v. Wills, 199 Okla. 272, 185 P.2d 689. The evidence discloses that petitioner at all times had the right of control of claimant in his use of the truck. The State Industrial Commission did not err in finding that claimant was an employee and not an independent contractor.