Ætna Cas. & Sur. Co v. Honea, No. 30607.
| Court | United States Court of Appeals (Georgia) |
| Writing for the Court | SUTTON |
| Citation | 31 S.E.2d 421 |
| Decision Date | 20 September 1944 |
| Docket Number | No. 30607. |
| Parties | ÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al. v. HONEA. |
31 S.E.2d 421
ÆTNA CASUALTY & SURETY CO. et al.
v.
HONEA.
No. 30607.
Court of Appeals of Georgia,
Division No. 2.
Sept. 20, 1944.
[31 S.E.2d 422]
1. In order for an injury to be compensable under the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act, it must have been occasioned "by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment." Code, § 114-102.
2. In this kind of a case the burden is on the claimant to prove that the injury for which compensation is sought arose out of and in the course of the employment before compensation can be awarded legally to the claimant.
3. The uncontroverted evidence in the present case shows that the claimant was injured during her lunch hour period, while she was going from the room on the fourth floor of the building where she worked to the beauty parlor on the second floor of the same building to have her hair dressed; that she had forty-five minutes for lunch, which time was her own to use as she chose. Held: Her preparation for and going to have her hair dressed was her individual affair, and it was no part of her employer's work.
4. Under the facts of this case and the law applicable thereto, a finding was demanded that the injury sustained by the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of her employment, within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Law. Consequently, it follows that the award by the State Board of Workmen's Compensation was not authorized by the evidence, and that the judge of the superior court erred in affirming the award.
FELTON, J., dissenting.
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; Walter C. Hendrix, Judge.
Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. R. H. Honea, claimant, opposed by the Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, insurance carrier, and another. To review a judgment of the Superior Court affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation in favor of the claimant, the insurance carrier and employer bring error.
Reversed.
Haas, Lyons & Hurt, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Hewlett & Dennis and T. F. Bowden, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
SUTTON, Presiding Judge.
Mrs. R. H. Honea filed with the State Board of Workmen's Compensation a claim for compensation for an injury sustained by her while she was an employee of J. M. High Company. The Aetna Casualty & Surety Company was the insurance carrier for her employer. The single director found in favor of the claimant and awarded her compensation; and, on appeal, this finding and award was approved by the full board. The superior court affirmed the award and the employer and the insurance carrier excepted.
The sole question for determination is whether or not the accident sustained by the claimant arose out of and in the course of her employment.
Mrs. Honea worked in the drapery department of J. M. High Company on the fourth floor of the store building, and her job was to cut and make draperies and to sew on slip covers. She was the only witness and testified, in substance, that she was fixing to go to lunch and got up from her machine and went upstairs and changed her dress and came back down and got her pocketbook and powdered her face and started out through the workroom and her feet became entangled in the upholstery fabric and caused her to
[31 S.E.2d 423]fall and injure her hip. The accident occurred September 20, 1943, about five minutes after 12:00 o'clock. She had an appointment downstairs at the beauty parlor on the second floor at 12:30 to get her hair set; the beauty parlor is a department of the store where she works and is located in the same building. They had lunch at any time from 12:00 o'clock until 3:00 o'clock, and she usually went to lunch at 12:00 o'clock, if she was not too busy, but if she was busy, she went later. She had forty-five minutes...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp., A18A0820
...Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burt , 103 Ga. App. 811, 814, 120 S.E.2d 797 (1961). In Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Honea , 71 Ga. App. 569, 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944), this Court followed Farr and held that an employee injured on her employer’s premises as she was leaving on her lunch break to go to a ha......
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp., S19G0447
...of this rule were developed almost entirely by the Court of Appeals. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Honea, 71 Ga. App. 569, 572-573, 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944) (relying on Farr to hold that an employee injured during a lunch break on her employer's premises was not entitled to compensation under th......
-
Lewis Wood Preserving Co. v. Jones, No. 40921
...not utilize the time in between work for his own personal pursuits. The case of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Honea, 71 Ga.App. 569, 31 S.E.2d 421, likewise does not depend upon this dictum, since this was a lunch hour case, as was the Farr case. [110 Ga.App. 695] The following authorities......
-
Stokes v. Coweta Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. A11A2062.
...Blair v. Ga. Baptist, etc., Inc., 189 Ga.App. 579, 582(2), 377 S.E.2d 21 (1988); Aetna Cas., etc. v. Honea, 71 Ga.App. 569, 572(1), 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944).9 [313 Ga.App. 510] In reversing the ALJ's award of benefits in this case, the Board concluded that the accident did not arise out of Stok......
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp., A18A0820
...Hardware Mut. Ins. Co. v. Burt , 103 Ga. App. 811, 814, 120 S.E.2d 797 (1961). In Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Honea , 71 Ga. App. 569, 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944), this Court followed Farr and held that an employee injured on her employer’s premises as she was leaving on her lunch break to go to a ha......
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp., S19G0447
...of this rule were developed almost entirely by the Court of Appeals. See Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Honea, 71 Ga. App. 569, 572-573, 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944) (relying on Farr to hold that an employee injured during a lunch break on her employer's premises was not entitled to compensation under th......
-
Lewis Wood Preserving Co. v. Jones, No. 40921
...not utilize the time in between work for his own personal pursuits. The case of Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Honea, 71 Ga.App. 569, 31 S.E.2d 421, likewise does not depend upon this dictum, since this was a lunch hour case, as was the Farr case. [110 Ga.App. 695] The following authorities......
-
Stokes v. Coweta Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. A11A2062.
...Blair v. Ga. Baptist, etc., Inc., 189 Ga.App. 579, 582(2), 377 S.E.2d 21 (1988); Aetna Cas., etc. v. Honea, 71 Ga.App. 569, 572(1), 31 S.E.2d 421 (1944).9 [313 Ga.App. 510] In reversing the ALJ's award of benefits in this case, the Board concluded that the accident did not arise out of Stok......