Globe Indem. Co. v. Legien

• Decision Date: 25 September 1933
• Docket Number: 22562.
• Citation: 171 S.E. 185,47 Ga.App. 539
• Parties: GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. et al. v. LEGIEN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

171 S.E. 185

47 Ga.App. 539

GLOBE INDEMNITY CO. et al. v. LEGIEN.

No. 22562.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, First Division

September 25, 1933

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Although stipulation submitted to Industrial Relations Department question whether accident arose out of employment and solely by reason thereof, department properly decided whether accident arose out of and in course of employment (Laws 1920 p. 167, as amended).

The Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 167, as amended) does not restrict the making of an award to accidents arising out of the employment and "solely by reason of the employment," but covers injuries by accident arising out of and "in the course of employment," which is a more inclusive rule.

Finding that employee, jumping from truck to protect himself from stray dog which he thought mad, was injured in course of employment, held authorized (Laws 1920, p. 167, as amended).

Employee stepping beyond his regularly designated duties in attempt to avoid injury, when confronted with sudden emergency, does not thereby go outside his employment (Laws 1920, p. 167, as amended).

Employee injured in attempting to avoid apparent danger, though not actually in danger, is not barred from recovery of compensation, if he acted as reasonable man (Laws 1920, p 167, as amended).

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. H. Legien opposed by the Globe Indemnity Company, insurer, and the employer. To review a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the Department of Industrial Relations in favor of the employee, the insurer and the employer bring error.

Affirmed.

James N. Frazer, of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

Alston, Alston, Foster & Moise and R. J. Ward, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

MacINTYRE Judge.

By stipulation the parties agreed that the question submitted to the Department of Industrial Relations was: "Does the accident arising under the given circumstances, under the given conditions, constitute an accident arising out of the employment and solely by reason of the employment?" They also agreed that while the employee was in the performance of his duties, a dog strayed in, from whose appearance the employee judged the animal to be mad, and to protect himself ran, leaped upon a lumber truck used on the premises, only to be followed by the dog, whereupon the employee jumped off the truck, accidentally fell to a cement floor, and was injured. Held:

1. The Department of Industrial Relations properly decided that the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 167, as amended) does not restrict the making of an award to accidents arising out of the employment and solely by reason of the employment, but that it covers...