Skelly Oil Co. v. Witty

Supreme Court of Oklahoma
Skelly Oil Co. v. Witty, 198 Okla. 384 (Okla. 1947)
179 P.2d 119; 1947 OK 107; 1947 Okla. LEXIS 465
Hurst, Davison, Riley, Bayless, Welch, Gibson, Arnold

Skelly Oil Co. v. Witty

Opinion of the Court

PER CURIAM.

This is an original petition filed by Skelly Oil Company to review an award made to claimant, Orville Witty, for compensation for an injury received by claimant while employed by petitioner.

In this case the Industrial Commission found that claimant was engaged in a hazardous employment covered by the Workmen’s Compensation Law, but did not set forth in its order the particular hazardous employment in which claimant was engaged, that is, whether the claimant herein was employed in a wholesale mercantile establishment, transfer or storage, or whether the place ef work constituted a workshop. It is said that claimant was working in the “retail , marketing department” of petitioner, but the record indicates rather vaguely that sales of its products were in sizable bulk to various filling stations, and whether said stations were operated directly by the company, or by lessees or operators or agents, is not clearly discernible from the record.

After a careful consideration of the record herein we are of the opinion that the order of the commission should be vacated and the cause remanded to the commissioh for further proceedings, to the end that the record may be clarified by further evidence, if necessary, and by specific finding of the character of employment found by the commission-to be hazardous. See Corzine v. Compress, 196 Okla. 259, 164 P. 2d 625.

Award vacated.

HURST, C.J., DAVISON, V.C.J., and RILEY, BAYLESS, WELCH, GIBSON, and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.

Reference

Full Case Name
SKELLY OIL CO. v. WITTY
Cited By
6 cases
Status
Published
Syllabus
(Syllabus.) 1. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION — Duty of Industrial Commission to make specific findings of fact as well as conclusions of law. It is the duty of the State Industrial. Commission to make specific findings of the ultimate facts responsive to the issues as well as the conclusions of law upon which an order is made granting or denying an award of compensation to a claimant. 2. SAME — Order vacated where findings and conclusions too indefinite for judicial interpretation. Where the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the State Industrial Commission are too indefinite and uncertain for judicial interpretation, this court, on appeal, will vacate the order for further proceedings.