Ferris v. Bonitz

19 Citing cases

  1. Jones Spicer v. McDonnell

    23 P.2d 701 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 12 times

    The claimant was therefore not engaged in a hazardous occupation within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law at the time he received his injury. In the case of Ferris v. Bonitz 149 Okla. 129 299 P. 473 this court speaking through Justice Andrews recognized the principle that where an employee whose duties are nonhazardous within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act but who also has hazardous duties to perform which are within the provisions of the act receives an injury arising out of and in the course of the nonhazardous employment the Workmen's Compensation Act does not apply and compensation for the injury sustained cannot properly be awarded by the State Industrial Commission. We therefore hold that since the injury sustained by the claimant was received by him while he was engaged in a nonhazardous employment within the contemplation of the Workmen's Compensation Act, no award could properly be made by the Commission.

  2. Terminal Building Co. v. Baker

    19 P.2d 368 (Okla. 1933)   Cited 3 times

    The question presented is whether or not claimant's claim comes within the Workmen's Compensation Act. This court has settled this question in the case of Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129. 299 P. 473, in which it was held: "An employee engaged as janitor foreman in an office building, whose duties are to run an elevator have charge of the help, keep the sinks unstopped, and operate the vacuum cleaner, who sustains an accidental personal injury while performing janitor work, in no way connected with the operation of the elevator, is not within the provisions of section 7283, C. O. S. 1921, as amended by section 1, ch. 61, Session Laws of 1923, and may not be awarded compensation for such injury."

  3. Slick v. Boyett

    160 Okla. 111 (Okla. 1932)   Cited 4 times

    The argument is made that the party was hired to play baseball. That appears to be true under this record, and some citations of authority are made from L. R. A. and R. C. L. and A. L. R., and especially the case of Anderson Kerr v. State Ind. Com., 155 Okla. 137, 7 P.2d 902, which was a case of unpremeditated playing while on duty, and a hazardous occupation as defined by the statute is cited, and also the case of Okla.-Ark. Telephone Co. v. Fries, 128 Okla. 295, 262 P. 1062, is cited as being decisive of the case, which was a case of a clerical worker and a man who was a mechanical laborer being engaged in clerical work at the Immediate time of the injury, who was shot in a fight between two of the managers, and also the cases of Motor Equipment Co. v. Stephens, 145 Okla. 156, 292 P. 63, and. I. T. I. O. v. Whitten, 150 Okla. 303, 1 P.2d 756, and an extract from Sapulpa Refining Co. v. State Ind. Comm., 91 Okla. 53, 215 P. 933, and reference is made to Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473, which was the case of a janitor who performed duties as an elevator operator, but was hurt in purely janitor service, reversing the Commission. It is not thought necessary to make comment on comment, and thereby give rise to more comment, but it is sufficient to say that it is clear in this case, and is admitted, that the party was engaged in playing baseball, which is not one of the employments that comes under the Workmen's Compensation Law. The insurance carrier assumed the risk of hazardous work as declared by the Workmen's Compensation Law, and not of playing baseball.

  4. NUNN v. OKLAHOMA CITY

    468 P.2d 478 (Okla. 1970)   Cited 1 times
    In Nunn v. Oklahoma City, Okla., 468 P.2d 478, we held that a janitor performing merely janitorial work is not employed in a hazardous employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law.

    We have held in several cases that "A janitor performing merely janitor work in an office building is not employed in a hazardous employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act." 85 O.S. 1961 §§ 2[ 85-2] and 3; Hallmark v. Oklahoma Publishing Co., 204 Okla. 364, 230 P.2d 268; Terminal Building Co. v. Baker, 162 Okla. 106, 19 P.2d 368; Exchange Building Co. v. Wasson, 154 Okla. 193, 7 P.2d 460; Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473. Claimant cites Okmulgee Democrat Publishing Company v. State Industrial Commission, 86 Okla. 62, 206 P. 249, and Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company v. State Industrial Commission, Okla., 330 P.2d 222, in support of his contention.

  5. Hallmark v. Oklahoma Publishing Co.

    230 P.2d 268 (Okla. 1951)   Cited 3 times

    One who is employed as a janitor in an office building and sustains an injury while engaged in cleaning Venetian blinds in the paymaster's office in the office building is not engaged in any employment defined as hazardous under the Workmen's Compensation Act and is therefore not entitled to compensation. A janitor performing merely janitor work in an office building is not employed in a hazardous employment within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act. 85 O.S. 1941 § 3[ 85-3]; Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473; Terminal Building Co. v. Baker, 162 Okla. 106, 19 P.2d 368. If petitioner had sustained his injury while performing manual or mechanical labor incident to or connected with the printing plant, or assuming that the operation of the electric power-driven paper baling machine in the basement constituted the basement a workshop, and petitioner had sustained his injury while performing work incident to or connected with the workshop, he would have been entitled to compensation.

  6. E. M. Mildred Agency v. Yates

    191 P.2d 581 (Okla. 1948)   Cited 5 times

    He was therefore not entitled to recover compensation. Furrow Co. v. Miller, 188 Okla. 199, 107 P.2d 193; City of Hobart v. Wagoner, 191 Okla. 689, 132 P.2d 926; Jones Spicer v. McDonnell, 164 Okla. 226, 23 P.2d 701; King v. Carl B. King Drilling Co., supra, and Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473. Findings and order vacated.

  7. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co. v. Nickens

    189 P.2d 184 (Okla. 1948)   Cited 5 times

    While he and the other man were bringing down the attic stairway a box weighing, as he testified, approximately 150 pounds, Nickens fell and injured himself. Petitioners contend that at the time of his injury claimant was doing ordinary janitor work, and therefore, under the rule announced in Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473; Clinton Cotton Oil Co. v. Holdman, 174 Okla. 423, 50 P.2d 732, and other similar cases, the claimant was not engaged in a hazardous occupation at the time of his injury, but was employed in a department or class of work which was nonhazardous. This contention may not be sustained.

  8. King v. Carl B. King Drilling Co.

    147 P.2d 463 (Okla. 1944)   Cited 5 times

    " 'Before a claimant can recover under the Industrial Act he must show that he was engaged, not only in manual or mechanical work or labor, but that such work or labor was of a hazardous nature.' "See, also, Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473; Crawford v. State Industrial Commission, 111 Okla. 265, 239 P. 575; World Publishing Co. v. Deloe, 162 Okla. 28, 18 P.2d 1070. "Admitting, without deciding, that claimant was in the employ of respondent, the Southwestern Cotton Oil Company, and further admitting that the Southwestern Cotton Oil Company is primarily engaged in a hazardous business, in order to justify a recovery, claimant must show that at the time of his injury he was engaged in a branch or department of said business which is defined as hazardous by the Workmen's Compensation Act."

  9. Tulsa Rig, Reel & Mfg. Co. v. Case

    55 P.2d 777 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 36 times

    Quoting from Coca Cola Bottling Co. v. Mowry, supra, we find the following: "In the case of Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473, we held that the employment must be connected with the business defined in section 13349. There is nothing in the record to show that the employment of the respondent Mowry in assisting other persons to load an ice box on a truck at the B M Clothing Store was connected with or incident to the employer's business of manufacturing bottled drinks at its factory. Our Workmen's Compensation Law is remedial in its objects and operation, and should receive a liberal construction in favor of those entitled to its benefits, but before one is entitled thereto he should be held to strict proof that he is within a class embraced in the provisions of the law, and nothing can be inferred or presumed in this respect.

  10. Continental Baking Co. v. Campbell

    176 Okla. 218 (Okla. 1936)   Cited 9 times

    The work of a janitor may or may not be compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Law of this state, depending altogether upon whether the particular janitor involved is employed in a hazardous business, and whether his work is connected with, or incident to, the industry or business in which he is so employed, and not upon the question of whether the work done was that purely incident to the services of a janitor. For a distinction in this connection see the cases Okmulgee Democrat Pub. Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 86 Okla. 62, 206 P. 249; Ferris v. Bonitz, 149 Okla. 129, 299 P. 473; Exchange Building Co. v. Wasson, 154 Okla. 193, 7 P.2d 460; Oklahoma Union Bus Terminal v. Stone, 162 Okla. 26, 18 P.2d 1057; and Terminal Building Co. v. Baker, 162 Okla. 106, 19 P.2d 368. Having reached the conclusions above stated, it is apparent that the contention of the petitioner is contrary to prior holdings of this court, and that on the face of the record here presented, the State Industrial Commission had jurisdiction to enter the order concerning which petitioner complains, and, therefore, said order will be in all things sustained.