Commercial Const. Co. v. Caldwell

• Decision Date: 11 January 1965
• Docket Number: Nos. 1,No. 40962,2,40962,s. 1
• Citation: 111 Ga.App. 1,140 S.E.2d 298
• Parties: COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. v. Welburn J. CALDWELL. & 3
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 298

140 S.E.2d 298

111 Ga.App. 1

COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al. v. Welburn J. CALDWELL.

No. 40962.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2 & 3.

Jan. 11, 1965.

Syllabus by the Court

The evidence authorized a finding that the claimant's injury arose out of his employment. The judge of the superior court did not err in affirming the award granting compensation to the claimant.

Smith, Ringel, Martin, Ansley & Carr, Charles L. Drew, Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Quillian & Quillian, Kelley Quillian, Winder, Charles H. Hyatt, Decatur, for defendant in error.

FELTON, Chief Judge.

This is a workmen's compensation case in which Welburn J. Caldwell seeks compensation for the loss of his right leg which occurred under the following circumstances. Claimant was working as a carpenter for a contractor on a construction project in a shopping center. He had been installing ceiling over 'a couple of little small rooms,' toilets or bathrooms, inside one of the stores in the shopping center. One Kensey, a plumber, who was not a fellow employee of claimant but was working for another contractor, came into the room after plaintiff had been working there about two hours, apparently to perform the work in connection with installing plumbing in the rooms. According to the claimant's testimony Kensey was 'cussing and fussing' about the working conditions and about the claimant being in his way, and he made some comment to the claimant to the effect that one or the other of them would have to go home as there was not room enough for both of them to work. The claimant, in an effort to avoid conflict with Kensey, moved his sawhorses out of the room and into another room and continued to work for two or three hours longer, until about lunch time. In the meantime Kensey had proceeded with his work while continually muttering and cursing about claimant and others in the room being in his way. Just prior to lunch claimant informed Kensey that he worked where his foreman told him to work and that no one else could tell him where or when to work. At this point Kensey picked up a hammer and swung it at the claimant who fended off the blow with his own hammer. A fight ensued between claimant and Kensey in which claimant bested Kensey in about one minute, after which Kensey stated that he had enough. Thereafter, claimant went to the outside of the building to eat his lunch, and while he was sitting on the outside Kensey came out, and as he passed the claimant he remarked to the claimant that he might as well have killed him because he was going to have to to live. Kensey left the scene, and thereafter claimant was sent by his foreman to work in another store under construction in the same shopping center, but some distance away. At about two o'clock in the afternoon Kensey drove up in an automobile in front of the store where claimant was working, reached into the back seat and withdrew a shotgun. Approaching the claimant Kensey asked him if he was a married man and if he had kissed his wife and children before he left home. To both of these questions claimant replied in the affirmative. Kensey then proceeded to shoot claimant in the right leg inflicting injuries resulting in the loss of the leg.

The deputy director made an award finding that claimant was not an aggressor in the fight which took place before lunch, and that the claimant suffered an accident and injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. The deputy director therefore made an award for total loss of use of claimant's right leg and medical expenses. The award of the deputy director was adopted as the award by the full board, and on appeal to the superior court that award was affirmed. It was conceded on the trial of the case that the claimant was in the employ of the defendant Commercial Construction Company; that his earnings were $100 per week; and that he suffered an injury while in the course of such employment from which he lost his right leg.

It is conceded in this case that the claimant suffered an accidental injury while in the course of his employment with Commercial Construction Company. No question is raised by the employer or its insurance carrier respecting the nature and extent of the injury and loss suffered by the claimant. The sole issue presented is whether the accident which resulted in the claimant's injury arose out of his employment. Under the facts found and authorized by the record we think that an award of compensation to the claimant was authorized under the rulings of this court in Scott v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 49 Ga.App. 157, 174 S.E. 629 and Pinkerton National Detective Agency v. Walker, 157 Ga. 548, 122 S.E. 202, 35 A.L.R. 557. We are of the opinion that the underlined expression in Code Ann. § 114-102, to wit: 'nor shall 'injury' and 'personal injury' include injury caused by the wilful act of a third person directed against an employee for reasons personal to such employee,' was not intended to exclude compensation where the animosity of an assailant, which results in injury to an employee, begins while the employee is on the job for his employer under circumstances where the employee does nothing to justify the animosity at the time and does nothing subsequently to provoke its continuance or aggravate it. We do not think that the fact that the shooting took place off the scene of the original cause of the animosity on the part of the third person but at another place where the employee was working makes any difference. If the chain of events leads back to the employee's employment and the state of mind of the assailant, the fact that the assault happens at a different time, not too remote and a different place, cuts no figure since the...