Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 48667
| Decision Date | 17 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 48667,No. 3,48667,3 |
| Parties | Lurene T. EDWARDS v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Hudson & Montgomery, David R. Montgomery, Jim Hudson, Athens, for appellant.
Erwin, Epting, Gibson & Chilivis, E. Davison Burch, Athens, for appellees.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court
Lurene Edwards was employed as a seamstress in a garment factory and was injured July 11, 1972 when she went to the bathroom, not during a scheduled rest break but at an unscheduled time subsequent to the morning break. She testified that at the bathroom 'when I sit down, just sit flat down and I went back and worked the rest of that day and then I told my floorlady that night . . . it had got so sore in my back and legs and naturally my hands . . . I have not worked since that time.' She further testified that she could not sit at the sewing machine more than just a few minutes at a time because her legs were giving her a great deal of trouble, and that her back was hurting her. She had suffered prior injury to her back in 1971 while working for another employer, and had been hospitalized for it and attended by several doctors. She took her job with Statham Garment Company in November, 1971 and worked for them until the incident on July 11, 1972. During that time her back had bothered her some, but it did not prevent her working regularly. She is obese and now spends about half the day in bed, but does do some sewing work at home on pre-cut materials that a fellow employee brings in to her. She is under regular treatment by a chiropractor.
The plant superintendent testified that although the company provided regular scheduled breaks for the employees, if an employee chose not to go on the regular rest break, he could take a break later, and that it was normal for some of the personnel to take their breaks at times other than the scheduled breaks, and that this was generally done because the rest room would be crowded during the scheduled break, or because the employee found it necessary to go to the rest room at a time not included in the scheduled break, and that if this were the case, the employee was free to do so, and it could be done without obtaining permission.
Mrs. Edwards filed her claim for workmen's compensation, and the single director found as a fact that Mrs. Edwards had suffered an injury which arose out of and in the course of her employment, which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
...of employment when employee was injured at work while bending over to pick up her personal medication); Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga. App. 23, 24 (2), 202 S.E.2d 208 (1973) (injury was compensable when it occurred while the employee was using the restroom during the workday).6 T......
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
...out of his employment. [Cits.]348 Ga.App. 33 Wilkie , supra, 124 Ga. App. at 715, 185 S.E.2d 783. In Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. , 130 Ga. App. 23, 202 S.E.2d 208 (1973), this Court imposed a limitation on the lunch break exception created in Farr by declining to extend the rule to uns......
-
Stokes v. Coweta Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...time before the meeting to drive to Tybee Island to eat a seafood dinner and to see the ocean.). 9. Cf. Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga.App. 23, 24(2), 202 S.E.2d 208 (1973) (An unscheduled break to use the restroom out of necessity is not time that is released to an employee “as f......
-
Dixie Roadbuilders, Inc. v. Sallet
...the premises during the break, and was subject to being called back to the operating room at any time); Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga.App. 23, 24(2), 202 S.E.2d 208 (1973) (an injury sustained by an employee during an unscheduled bathroom break was covered by workers' compensatio......
-
The New Home-Workspace: How The Sudden Shift To A Predominately Remote Work Force Highlights The Need To Revisit Cartersville City Schools v. Johnson
...deviations from work to perform household chores or socialize are not within the scope of employment. Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga. App. 23 In a more recent case from 2004, the Court of Appeals shed light on its willingness to adopt a broad interpretation of an employee's "scope......
-
The New Home-Workspace: How The Sudden Shift To A Predominately Remote Work Force Highlights The Need To Revisit Cartersville City Schools v. Johnson
...deviations from work to perform household chores or socialize are not within the scope of employment. Edwards v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 130 Ga. App. 23 In a more recent case from 2004, the Court of Appeals shed light on its willingness to adopt a broad interpretation of an employee's "scope......