City of Atlanta v. Shaw, 72235
| Decision Date | 09 May 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 72235,72235 |
| Citation | 179 Ga.App. 148,345 S.E.2d 642 |
| Parties | CITY OF ATLANTA v. SHAW. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Marva Jones Brooks, George R. Ference, Atlanta, for appellant.
Susan E. Lowe, Charles B. Zirkle, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
Mary Shaw, a water plant operator employed by the City of Atlanta, sought workers' compensation benefits for injuries sustained during a fight with a co-employee. The administrative law judge's denial of Shaw's claim was reversed by the State Board of Workers' Compensation (Board) upon de novo review of the record. The Superior Court of Fulton County affirmed the Board. We granted the City of Atlanta's application for discretionary review.
Appellant contends the trial court erred by affirming the Board's award in favor of appellee because appellee's injuries were the result of a personal dispute with a co-employee and therefore are not compensable under the Workers' Compensation Act (Act). OCGA § 34-9-1(4) defines "injury" for purposes of the Act as "injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment...." Specifically excluded from this definition is "injury caused by the willful act of a third person directed against an employee for reasons personal to such employee...." Id.
Whether the fight resulting in appellee's injuries occurred for "reasons personal to" her, thereby excluding those injuries from workers' compensation coverage, depends upon whether the injuries arose out of and in the course of appellee's employment with appellant. Murphy v. ARA Svcs., 164 Ga.App. 859, 861, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982). A careful review of the record reveals no evidence that the dispute between appellee and her co-worker was anything other than a personal one. Although the evidence is conflicting as to whether it was appellee or her co-worker who initiated the physical fight, it is uncontroverted that the verbal disagreement between the two which led to the fight concerned their use of appellant's telephone for their respective personal calls. It is also uncontroverted that there was a history of personal animosity between appellee and her co-worker. Appellee was not performing "tasks required by or incidental to her employment" at the time she sustained her injuries, so that her injuries therefore did not arise out of the course of her employment. Id. at 861, 298 S.E.2d at 528. Further, appellee would have been equally exposed to the hazard of incurring such injuries apart from her employment and thus her injuries did not arise out of her employment with appellant. Id. at 862, 298 S.E.2d at 529. See also Kight v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 141 Ga.App. 409, 410, 233 S.E.2d 453 (1977). Parker v. Travelers Ins. Co., 142...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walsh Const. Co. v. Hamilton
...and that claimant was entitled to compensation. Appellants contend that this situation is controlled by City of Atlanta v. Shaw, 179 Ga.App. 148, 345 S.E.2d 642 (1986), in which case the employee sought benefits for injuries she sustained during a fight with a co-employee. Shaw's injuries w......
-
Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.
...upon whether the injuries arose out of and in the course of [Swanson's] employment with [Lockheed]. [Cit.]" City of Atlanta v. Shaw, 179 Ga.App. 148, 149, 345 S.E.2d 642 (1986). In support of this contention Swanson relies on his affidavit filed contemporaneously with his brief in oppositio......
-
Lindsey v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc.
...performance of his work, then his injuries will not be considered compensable under the Act. See, e.g., City of Atlanta v. Shaw, 179 Ga.App. 148, 345 S.E.2d 642 (1986). Accord Murphy v. ARA Svcs., 164 Ga.App. 859, 862-863, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982) (where an employee's claim to recover against ......
-
Atkinson v. Ledbetter
...that we are bound to affirm the decision of the trier of fact if there is any evidence to sustain it. See City of Atlanta v. Shaw, 179 Ga.App. 148, 149, 345 S.E.2d 642 (1986). However, when there is no evidence to support that decision, our duty is to reverse. Id. Here, since neither the bl......