Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp., A97A0434
Decision Date | 09 May 1997 |
Docket Number | No. A97A0434,A97A0434 |
Parties | , 97 FCDR 1949 BOULWARE v. QUIKTRIP CORPORATION. |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
McKinney & Salo, Jan McKinney, Norcross, for appellant.
Sullivan, Hall, Booth & Smith, Roger S. Sumrall, Heather R. Clark, Atlanta, for appellee.
Trudee L. Boulware appeals the trial court's grant of Quiktrip Corporation's motion for summary judgment in her action for psychological damages arising from a robbery at the Quiktrip store where she worked.
On November 26, 1992, while Boulware was working alone as an assistant manager at a Quiktrip store, three or four armed robbers entered the store, pointed sawed-off shotguns at Boulware and robbed the store. Boulware contends she has suffered severe emotional injuries after the robbery. Boulware deposed that she received a bruise on her back during the robbery when the robbers pushed her around. In addition to her claims of negligence, Boulware alleges in her complaint, the following:
Quiktrip contends that Boulware's action is barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Act. See OCGA § 34-9-11(a). As this is an issue of law we review it de novo. See Bishop v. Mangal Bhai Enterprises, 194 Ga.App. 874(1), 392 S.E.2d 535 (1990).
Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment. OCGA § 34-9-11. (Punctuation omitted.) Macy's South v. Clark, 215 Ga.App. 661, 662-663(1), 452 S.E.2d 530 (1994). Furthermore, Doss v. Food Lion, 267 Ga. 312(1), 477 S.E.2d 577 (1996).
In her complaint, Boulware alleges that she has suffered severe emotional injuries proximately resulting from Quiktrip's negligence in failing to provide a safe place to work and in failing to allow her to change positions within the company. By her own allegations, Boulware's injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. Boulware alleges a causal connection between the work she was required to perform and her injuries. Furthermore, Zaytzeff v. Safety-Kleen Corp., 222 Ga.App. 48, 51, 473 S.E.2d 565 (1996). Therefore, Boulware's injuries fall within the purview of the Act, and her remedy, if any, lies exclusively under the provision of the Act. See Maxwell v. Hosp. Auth. of Dade, Walker, etc., 202 Ga.App. 92, 95, 413 S.E.2d 205 (1991).
Whether Boulware's injuries are compensable under the Act is not before us, and the answer to that issue is not dispositive of whether this action falls within the Act's exclusivity provision. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Slater v. McKinsey & Company, Inc. United States
...employees within the act. [ OCGA § 34–9–23.]" Doss v. Food Lion , 267 Ga. 312 (1), 477 S.E.2d 577 (1996). Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp. , 226 Ga. App. 399, 399, 486 S.E.2d 662, 663 (1997) ; see also Davis v. Louisiana-Pac. Corp. , 344 Ga. App. 757, 758, 811 S.E. 2d 476, 478 (2018) (the Georgia......
-
Smith v. Ellis
...as well as the employer is limited to those things for which the Act makes provision,’ ” id. at 4 (quoting Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp., 226 Ga.App. 399, 400, 486 S.E.2d 662 (1997)). Judge Andrews concluded that allowing parties to circumvent the Act's exclusive remedy provision by agreeing t......
-
Oertel v. Chi Psi Fraternity
...595-596, 370 S.E.2d 843 (1988). On appeal, this court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp., 226 Ga.App. 399, 486 S.E.2d 662 (1997); Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga.App. 137, 138(2), 479 S.E.2d 432 2. The law concerning liability of owners or keepers o......
-
Franklin v. CONSOL. GOVERNMENT OF COLUMBUS
...or denial of a motion for summary judgment, this Court conducts a de novo review of the law and the evidence. Boulware v. Quiktrip Corp., 226 Ga.App. 399, 486 S.E.2d 662 (1997); Goring v. Martinez, 224 Ga.App. 137, 138(2), 479 S.E.2d 432 The record shows that on December 13, 1994, around 7:......