Allied Chemical Corp. v. Peacock, 58194
| Decision Date | 24 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 58194,58194 |
| Citation | 259 S.E.2d 681,151 Ga.App. 278 |
| Parties | ALLIED CHEMICAL CORPORATION v. PEACOCK et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Joseph H. Davis, Macon, for appellant.
Manley F. Brown, H. T. O'Neal, Jr., S. Phillip Brown, Macon, for appellees.
The plaintiff and her husband brought an action in the State Court of Bibb County against Allied Chemical Corporation, Carl L. Flair, Donald McCarty, and Gary Mullis. The complaint alleged that the plaintiff was an employee of Allied Chemical Corporation at its plant in Bibb County; that the defendant Flair was the general manager of the plant; that the defendant McCarty was the assistant manager of the plant; that the defendant Mullis was an agent of the corporation and a supervisor over the plaintiff. At approximately 7:00 a. m. on January 18, 1977, the plaintiff drove her automobile to the premises of the defendant Allied Chemical and went about the duties of her employment; the furnace providing heat for the building area where the plaintiff worked was inoperative and it was so cold in the work area as to be practically uninhabitable; the weather was very cold and densely cloudy and snow flurries began to occur; the weather continued to worsen and the snow began to accumulate so that by 8:00 a. m. it was obvious that a severe snow storm was in progress accompanied by hard freezing temperatures.
It was further alleged that about this time representatives of Allied Chemical made inquiries of the Georgia State Patrol concerning road conditions in the Macon area and were informed that the situation was becoming extremely perilous and it would be advisable to let the employees go home immediately. A snow storm is a highly unusual event in central Georgia and there are no facilities for traveling on roads and highways on which snow has accumulated; the plaintiff lived 11 or more miles from her place of employment and became concerned that she would be unable to get back home unless she left before there was a greater accumulation of snow on the streets and roads. Therefore, the plaintiff requested permission from her superior, defendant Mullis, to leave but the defendant Mullis refused her request and informed the plaintiff she would be fired if she left her employment to go home. Subsequently, the plaintiff and a number of other employees requested permission from defendants Mullis and McCarty to leave and the defendant Flair, with full knowledge of the perilous and dangerous conditions, refused to permit plaintiff and her co-employees to leave while it was reasonably safe for them to do so. All the requests were made at a time when it would have been safe for the plaintiffs and others to return to their homes. Snow continued to fall and accumulate and at approximately 9:45 a. m. the plaintiff's work area was closed down and employees in the area were sent home. This action made it necessary for the plaintiff to leave the plant; she was left with no alternative except to attempt to return home. By this time the snow...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Aretz
...excludes all other remedies against the employer. Code Ann. § 114-103 (Ga.L.1972, pp. 929, 930); e. g., Allied Chemical Corp. v. Peacock, 151 Ga.App. 278, 259 S.E.2d 681 (1979). Thiokol employees then brought suit against the United States government under the Federal Tort Claims Act. This ......
-
Brazier v. Travelers Ins. Co.
...remedy against an employer for injuries by accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Allied Chemical Corp. v. Peacock, 151 Ga.App. 278, 259 S.E.2d 681 (1979). The Workers' Compensation Act, thereby bars all suits at common law brought by an employee against her employer for w......
-
Synalloy Corp. v. Newton
...Act for all those persons whose diseases satisfied the five criteria quoted above. OCGA § 34-9-11; Allied Chemical Corp. v. Peacock, 151 Ga.App. 278, 259 S.E.2d 681 (1979). The appellant denied that two of the prescribed circumstances had been fulfilled, contending that there was no causal ......
-
Samuel v. Baitcher, 59331
...Co., 149 Ga.App. 229, 253 S.E.2d 805 (1979); Fox v. Stanish, 150 Ga.App. 537(1), 258 S.E.2d 190 (1979); Allied Chemical Corp. v. Peacock, 151 Ga.App. 278, 259 S.E.2d 681 (1979). See generally, 31 Mer. L. Rev. 236 (1979). However, we view Samuel's suit against the officers merely as an attem......