# J. J. Harrison Construction Co. v. Mitchell

> Supreme Court of Oklahoma · November 20, 1934 · 170 Okla. 364

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824252

## Case

- **Full name:** J. J. HARRISON CONSTRUCTION CO. Et Al. v. MITCHELL Et Al.
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Oklahoma
- **Decided:** November 20, 1934
- **Citations:** 170 Okla. 364; 40 P.2d 643; 1934 OK 648; 1934 Okla. LEXIS 754
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing by Bayless
- **Judges:** Bayless, Riley, Cullison, Wind, Osborn, Welch, Andrews, McNeill, Busby, Corn, Phelps, Gibson
- **Cited by:** 12 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824252

## Opinion text

On Rehearing.
BAYLESS, J.
The petitioners have filed a petition for rehearing on the original opinion written by us. This calls for a clarification of the directions contained in the conclusion of the opinion.
Petitioners alleged in their petition for review, and argued in their brief, that no notice in writing of the accident and injury had been given by the employee to the employer, nor had the failure to give such notice been excused upon a showing that no prejudice had resulted therefrom to the employer. Petitioners now assert that this point was not discussed in our opinion, and because we specified certain issues to be fortified or clarified by additional evidence on retrial, the effect of our opinion would be, inferentially, to overrule its assignment) of error in respect thereto and to limit the retrial to the issues specified.
The petitioners argued in the brief, and now argue in the petition for rehearing, that the record upon this point is conclusive in their favor and against the employee.
Employee’s notice of injury is provided for by section 13358, O. S. 1931 .(7292, C. O. S. 1921). We have construed this section of the act to mean that where no written notice of the injury is given to an employer by the employee, and the employer has no actual) notice of the injury, the burden rests upon the employee to show that no prejudice resulted therefrom to the employer. Ford Motor Co. v. Hunt, 146 Okla. 105 , 293 P. 1038 ; Fidelity Union Casualty Co. v. State Ind. Comm., 130 Okla. 65 , 265 P. 131 ; and Cameron Coal Co. v. Collopy, 102 Okla. 207 , 228 P. 1100 . See, also, Norman Steam Laundry v. Ind. Comm., 160 Okla. 107 , 16 P. (2d) 92 , specifying the information to be conveyed by the written notice ; and Tidal Ref. Co. v. Ballard, 163 Okla. 259 , 21 P. (2d) 1054 , announcing the rule with reference to what constitutes unwritten notice to, or actual knowledge on the part of, an employer which is a corporation.
The record in this case shows that the employee did not give written notice to liis employer; and the employee testified' that he did not know whether the employer had actual notice or knowledge of the accident and injury. The employee made no effort to prove that no prejudice resulted to the employer as a result of the employee’s failure to give written notice. The award must be vacated for this reason, also.
McNEILL, C. J., OSBORN, V. C. J., and BUSBY, WELCH, CORN, PHELPS, and GIBSON, JJ„ concur. RILEY, X, absent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9824252. Public record. Not legal advice.