164 P.2d 864 | Okla. | 1945
On the 3rd day of February, 1944, Norman V. Anderson, hereinafter called respondent, filed his first notice of injury and claim for compensation stating that he sustained an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment with Leonard Billen, operating under the name of Billen's Dairy, hereinafter called petitioner, when he caught his hand in a hammer mill while grinding feed. On the 8th day of July, 1944, an award was entered and petitioner seeks to review the award.
The extent of disability, its connection with the accidental injury, and the amount of the award are not at issue. The evidence discloses that petitioner runs a dairy and has a herd of approximately 85 cows. It is modernly equipped with machinery incident to the trade of a dairy and respondent was employed to operate the machinery, clean up the premises, feed the cattle, and was known as an "extra hand". This is not denied. It is not even seriously suggested that the employees of a dairy such as operated by petitioner are not within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Petitioner asserts that he operated two lines of business. The first a dairy; the second a farm, and that respondent was an employee of his farm, and that he was, as such employee, grinding corn for the cattle when he sustained the accidental injury of which complaint is made. Petitioner insists that the case comes within the rule anounced in Clinton Cotton Oil Co. v. Holdman,
In Voss Bros. Dairy v. Gardner,
The feeding of the cattle, the grinding of the corn for feed, the running of the machines, the cleaning up of the premises, were all incident to and connected with his employment with the dairy. The employment of respondent insofar as it partook of farming in any respect was rather an incident to his employment with the petitioner's dairy. *304
It is argued that the evidence showed that the petitioner had other stock, at least one horse that ate the ground corn, and that there were other evidences indicating that the petitioner was a farmer. Leonard Billen, owner and operator of the dairy, when asked a question warranting the reply, stated that his only business was producing milk. It is admitted that the production of milk was in connection with the operating of the dairy.
This is the single issue presented in the two propositions briefed by the petitioner.
The award is sustained.
HURST, V. C. J., and RILEY, CORN, DAVISON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur. GIBSON, C. J., dissents.