Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., Inc.
| Decision Date | 07 September 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 34940,34940 |
| Parties | HAYGOOD v. HOME TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, INC. et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Long, Weinberg, Ansley & Wheeler, Sidney F. Wheeler, Dan B. Wingate, Atlanta, for appellant.
Freeman & Hawkins, J. Bruce Welch, H. Lane Young, II, Atlanta, for appellees.
Certiorari was granted in this case to review the holding of the Court of Appeals in Haygood v. Home Transportation Co., 149 Ga.App. 229, 253 S.E.2d 805 (1979). There, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Home Transportation Company, holding that Home Transportation Company, as statutory employer of petitioner's deceased husband, was liable to petitioner under the Workers' Compensation Act, and that the collection of compensation from Home Transportation as the statutory employer barred recovery by Mrs. Haygood against it. The facts, which are set forth in the Court of Appeals' opinion, will be briefly stated.
Home Transportation had a contract with one McElhenney, an independent contractor, to furnish Home Transportation with an interstate driver and rig. McElhenney employed Mr. Haygood, petitioner's now deceased husband, to drive for Home Transportation in furtherance of the contract. As McElhenney employed less than three employees, the Workers' Compensation Act did not apply to him or his employees. Code Ann. § 114-107. Home Transportation as "principal," paid workers' compensation premiums to its carrier and covered Haygood as a statutory employee. At the time of his death, Haygood was driving for the benefit of Home Transportation.
Following Haygood's death, Home Transportation Company and its insurer filed the necessary forms with the State Board of Workers' Compensation and paid to Mrs. Haygood the requisite funeral expenses and allowable death benefits. After accepting these benefits, Mrs. Haygood filed a suit for wrongful death against Home Transportation Company alleging that their negligence brought about her husband's death.
Home Transportation Company answered denying liability and filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Mrs. Haygood had been paid benefits pursuant to the Workers' Compensation Act, and was barred from further recovery under Code Ann. § 114-103 which provides: "The rights and the remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents, or next of kin, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death: Provided, however, that no employee shall be deprived of any right to bring an action against any third-party tortfeasor." The trial court granted respondent's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
We agree with the Court of Appeals' determination that Haygood was a statutory employee of Home Transportation Company under Code Ann. § 114-112. See American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Fuller, 123 Ga.App. 585, 181 S.E.2d 876 (1971). Therefore, Home Transportation Company was required by law to comply with Workers' Compensation Act in respect to its relationship with Haygood. Additionally, we find that the Board of Workers' Compensation approved an agreement to payment of benefits, entered into and signed by Mrs. Haygood. Thereafter, the award had the effect of a final judgment. Code Ann. § 114-705. "An agreement fixing compensation between the employer and the employee, approved by the Board of Workmen's Compensation, and not appealed from, is res judicata as to the matters therein determined, and the parties are precluded from thereafter contradicting or challenging the matters thus agreed upon." Aetna Ins. Co. v. Gipson, 104 Ga.App. 108, 110, 121 S.E.2d 256, 257 (1961).
Under the facts in this case, it cannot be said that the payment of benefits by Home Transportation Company to Mrs. Haygood was voluntary. Home Transportation Company was bound to make payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into by the parties and approved by the Board of Workers' Compensation. Thereafter, Mrs. Haygood was excluded by law under Code Ann. § 114-103 from pursuing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lops v. Lops
... ... the children stayed with Respondent Harrington in her home in Martinez near Augusta, Georgia. In early August 1995, ... 28 U.S.C. § 1738; Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Epstein, 516 U.S. 367, 373, 116 S.Ct. 873, 877, ... at 21-22, 103 S.Ct. at 939-40; Noonan South, Inc. v. County of Volusia, 841 F.2d 380, 382 (11th Cir.1988) ... 70, 485 S.E.2d 483 (1997); Greene v. Transp. Ins. Co., 169 Ga. App. 504, 506, 313 S.E.2d 761, 763 ... ...
-
Smith v. Ellis
...circumstances of the employee's injury and the amount of compensation to which the parties agreed. See Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 244 Ga. 165, 166–67, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979) (holding that the exclusive remedy provision barred a tort lawsuit against the plaintiff's employer because the plai......
-
Massey v. U.S.
...actually paid the benefits before being sued by the employee on a common law negligence action. See Haygood v. Home Transportation Co., Inc., 244 Ga. 165, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979) (Jordan, J., concurring specially, arguing that majority had overruled Blair v. Smith sub silentio ); Jackson v. J......
-
Wright Associates, Inc. v. Rieder
...in tort from his statutory employer although not from his immediate employer. In 1979, this court decided Haygood v. Home Transportation Co., 244 Ga. 165, 259 S.E.2d 429 (1979), in which we held that a principal contractor is the statutory employer of the employee of a subcontractor who is ......