Case Name: SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, Own Risk Carrier, Petitioner, v. George A. WATERS and State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents
Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Oklahoma
Decision Date: 1959-11-17
Citations: 348 P.2d 320
Docket Number: No. 38523
Parties: SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, Own Risk Carrier, Petitioner, v. George A. WATERS and State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents.
Judges: WELCH, HALLEY, JOHNSON and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
Reporter: Pacific Reporter 2d
Volume: 348
Pages: 320–327

Head Matter:
SKELLY OIL COMPANY, a Corporation, Own Risk Carrier, Petitioner, v. George A. WATERS and State Industrial Commission of the State of Oklahoma, Respondents.
No. 38523.
Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
Nov. 17, 1959.
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1960.
Louis B. Gresham, James A. Robinson and Ralph L. Cunnyngham, Tulsa, for petitioner.
Grady H. Holloway, Oklahoma City, for respondents.

Opinion:
WILLIAMS, Vice Chief Justice.
This is an original proceeding to review an order of the State Industrial Commission, sitting en banc, sustaining an award of the trial commissioner to George A. Waters, hereinafter referred to as claimant, against his employer, Skelly Oil Company, hereinafter referred to as Skelly, for compensation for an injury occurring in the course of his employment.
Claimant was employed by Skelly as manager and operator of a service station in Oklahoma City. On September 17, 1957, claimant attempted to raise the hood of a car on the station driveway. The hood was stuck and when it came loose it threw him backwards. Claimant fell to the pavement, injuring the lower part of his back. Claimant continued working the day of the injury and most of the following day. He was sent to Dr. B in the afternoon of that day. Dr. B hospitalized claimant in a clinic for five days. He was released by the doctor for light duty on October 8, 1957. He returned to work on October 9, 1957, and worked until December 6, 1957. Dr. B released claimant with no permanent disability on December 13, 1957.
Claimant did not work again until April, 1958. Between April and July, 1958, claimant worked two or three days a week trucking and selling fruit. While on a trip to sell fruit, in April, 1958, in lifting quart boxes of strawberries, his back "went out" completely. In July, 1958, on a trip to Colorado to get apricots, while sitting and talking, his back "went out" again. Since then he has not worked because of his back.
On September 17, 1958, claimant was examined by Dr. M who gave an opinion that claimant should be considered for surgery for a ruptured intervertebral disc. Dr. M's opinion was that claimant was temporarily totally disabled, and related such disability to the injury on September 17, 1957.
The trial commissioner made the following finding: 1. That in addition to running a service station, respondent (Skelly) engaged in both wholesale and retail trade in gas and oil; 2. That respondent also engaged in running a workshop where mechanical work was done and charges made to the public for said service. The trial commissioner further found that claimant sustained the injury as alleged; that claimant was temporarily totally disabled from September 18, 1957, and awarded compensation therefor. This order was sustained by the Industrial Commission sitting en banc. Skelly appeals from such order.
It is well established that the jurisdiction of the State Industrial Commission to award compensation for disability resulting from injury is confined to the employments enumerated by the compensation act. Burger v. Lickliter, Okl., 319 P.2d 594.
Automobile service stations are not listed in such act, 85 O.S.1951 § 2; and in Rider v. Bob Hiner Service Station, Old., 321 P.2d 378, we held that the operation of a retail oil and gas filling station is not one of the plants, industries, or occupations defined as hazardous under the Workmen's Compensation Law.
Claimant contends that the business conducted at this service station consisted of both retail and wholesale sales, and that by virtue of the wholesale business, it is to be classified as a wholesale mercantile establishment which is enumerated in such act.
To support this argument, claimant testified that he made sales of commodities at wholesale prices at this station. No further evidence was introduced to show this business to be a "wholesale mercantile establishment" other than claimant's said testimony.
We distinguished the terms "wholesale" and "retail" in Veazey Drug Co. v. Bruza, 169 Okl. 418, 37 P.2d 294, 296, wherein we stated:
"The term 'wholesale' or the selling in or by unbroken parcels is distinguished from 'retail' or dividing into smaller quantities and selling direct to consumers "
Webster's Dictionary defines "wholesale" as "pertaining to, or engaged in, trade by the piece or large quantity; selling to retailers or jobbers rather than consumers".
We must conclude that "wholesale mercantile establishment" as used in this Act (85 O.S.1951 § 2) means a business concern that primarily sells to jobbers or retailers in relatively large quantities or in unbroken lots for resale, and which does not ordinarily in the conduct of its business sell individual or single items directly to the consumer. The test is not the quantity of goods or the prices charged, but the nature of the sale, i. e., whether it is for resale or for consumption.
In Hurley v. O'Brien, 192 Okl. 490, 137 P.2d 592, we stated that isolated sales by a retail establishment do not constitute the same as a wholesale mercantile establishment.
Claimant testified that Skelly's business at this location was sales to the public. In view of the foregoing, we find that there was insufficient evidence to warrant a finding that Skelly's business at this location was a "wholesale mercantile establishment".
Claimant further contends that "a retail service station, not included as a hazardous employment under the statute, which maintains a place where machinery is kept and manual and mechanical work is done and charges made therefor, is a workshop within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act" (85 O.S.1951 § 1 et seq).
In support of this argument, claimant cites Bishop v. Wilson, 147 Okl. 224, 296 P. 438. Upon review of the opinion in that case, it does not support claimant's argument. That decision, although involving an injury of a filling station employee sustained while repairing a tube or tire, was based on the presumption that upon filing a claim, the employer's business is presumed to come within the Act. This rule has been modified. See Enid Cemetery Ass'n v. Grace, 177 Okl. 320, 59 P.2d 284; Oklahoma Tire & Supply Co. v. Summerlin, Okl., 290 P. 2d 403.
In order to show that this station constituted a "workshop" as defined by 85 O.S. 1951 § 11, claimant testified that he kept a set of small tools, there was a tire repair kit (not power driven), an iron man, and a hydraulic hoist, or grease rack, used in lubricating cars. Claimant also testified that he adjusted brakes, greased and washed cars, made minor repairs such as replacing points, and installed batteries and accessories sold through the station.
The term "workshop" is defined by statute, 85 O.S.1951 § 3(11) as:.
" 'Workshop' means any premises, yard, plant, room or place wherein machinery is employed and manual or mechanical labor is exercised by way of trade for gain or otherwise, or incidental to the process of making, altering, repairing, printing or ornamenting, cleaning, finishing, or adopting for sale or otherwise, any article, or part of article, machine or thing over which premises, room or place the employer of the person working therein has the rights of access or control."
It is apparent from our decisions that the mere presence of machines or appliances is not the test for a workshop. In Hurley v. O'Brien, 192 Okl. 490, 137 P.2d 592, 595, quoting from the opinion in Southwestern Grocery Co. v. State Industrial Commission, 85 Okl. 248, 205 P. 929, 931, we said:
" 'We are of the opinion that in the instant case the fact that the petitioner operated an electric sausage grinder in the meat market did not render the entire store a workshop', since the rule so announced is consonant with both reason and the facts. Reflection will demonstrate what we mean. A retail meat market is one for vending meats at retail. The purpose of the equipment therein is to better effectuate and carry out the business of retail vending of meats, and whether such equipment is operated by hand or an electric motor is immaterial; so far as the nature of the business is concerned it still continues to be a retail meat market and nothing more. This was the effect of our holding in Plaza Grill v. Webster, 182 Okl. 533, 78 P.2d 818. Enid Cemetery Ass'n v. Grace, 177 Okl. 320, 59 P.2d 284; Sims v. St. Anthony Plospital, 180 Okl. 385, 69 P.2d 1040."
In McClung v. Colclasure, 197 Okl. 445, 172 P.2d 623, 624, we stated:
"It may be seen therefore in overruling Sunshine Food Stores v. Moore-head, supra [153 Okl. 301, 5 P.2d 1066], the court laid down the rule that power driven machinery which was a mere incident to the operation of the business not listed as hazardous in which an injured employee was employed did not make such business hazardous."
This rule was followed in Wilde v. Physicians & Dentists Bldg. Co., 197 Okl. 683, 174 P.2d 382, and Parlor v. John Mon-gold Drive-In Cafe, 204 Okl. 458, 230 P.2d 887.
Skelly's business at this location was the sale of petroleum products and accessories to the public, and to sell certain services, such as greasing, washing, adjusting brakes and points, and fixing flats. In none of these operations were power machinery used, only simple hand tools. The use of the hydraulic hoist was incidental to such service. Its use was a means of providing more efficient service, an improvement over the old style grease pits. In this case the "machine" is not used to perform the service rendered. It cannot be said that claimant's employment was rendered hazardous merely because the hydraulic hoist was used to facilitate the rendering of the service.
We are of the opinion that the use of a hydraulic hoist in connection with the services of this filling station does not sustain the commission's finding that Skelly was operating a workshop.
This court in reviewing an award of the State Industrial Commission concerning a jurisdictional question, will weigh the evidence relating thereto and make its own independent findings of fact. Mahl v. McMahan, Okl., 325 P.2d 78; Williams v. Branum, 192 Okl. 129, 134 P.2d 352.
In view of the above we find that claimant was not employed in a hazardous employment under 85 O.S.1951 § 2, 3 and 11, and that the award should be vacated.
Award vacated.
WELCH, HALLEY, JOHNSON and JACKSON, JJ., concur.
BLACKBIRD, IRWIN and BERRY, JJ., dissent.