Home Ins. Co. v. Burnett, 55248

• Court: United States Court of Appeals (Georgia)
• Citation: 246 S.E.2d 394,146 Ga.App. 355
• Docket Number: No. 55248,55248
• Parties: HOME INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. BURNETT.
• Decision Date: 22 June 1978

Page 394

246 S.E.2d 394

146 Ga.App. 355

HOME INSURANCE COMPANY et al. v. BURNETT.

No. 55248.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Argued Feb. 6, 1978.

Decided June 22, 1978.

Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Robert R. Potter, James T. McDonald, Jr., Atlanta, for appellants.

Mitchell, Mitchell, Coppedge, Boyett, Wester & Bates, J. Raymond Bates, Jr., Warren N. Coppedge, Jr., Dalton, for appellee.

QUILLIAN, Presiding Judge.

Appeal was taken from the judgment of the Whitfield Superior Court affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation. Held :

1. The award of the full board stated in part: "The sole issue to be determined in this claim is that of jurisdiction. Code § 114-411 governs a claim where, as here, the work-related accident occurred outside this state. Uncontradicted testimony adduced at hearing establishes that claimant's state of legal residence is Georgia and that his contract of employment was to be performed in Georgia as well as Tennessee. The foregoing conditions satisfy the requirements of § 114-411 and thus it follows that jurisdiction in this claim properly lies in Georgia." The award was based on an erroneous legal theory that because the claimant's residence was in Georgia and part of the contract was to be performed in Georgia, under Code § 114-411 Georgia had jurisdiction of the workmen's compensation claim resulting from an out of state injury.

In fact, Code § 114-411 provides that for Georgia to have jurisdiction of an injury which occurs outside of the state: (1) the contract must be entered into in Georgia, (2) the claimant must reside in Georgia or the employer have a place of business in Georgia. Since the award was based on an erroneous legal theory, the judgment of the superior court affirming the award of the workmen's compensation board is reversed with direction that the case be remanded to the board for action in accordance with what is stated in this opinion.

Judgment reversed with direction.

BELL, C. J., WEBB, SMITH, BANKE and BIRDSONG, JJ., concur.

DEEN, P. J., McMURRAY and SHULMAN, JJ., dissent.

McMURRAY, Judge, dissenting.

The claimant herein was a truck driver employed by Tri-State Contract Trucking, an interstate commerce carrier having a contract with General Shale, operating both in Georgia and in Tennessee. The claimant was employed to deliver brick and concrete block from General Shale's plant at Cohutta, Georgia, Tri-State having two trucks based in Georgia for delivery from this plant to places throughout Georgia, Tennessee and other states in the area.

Claimant first learned of the employment opening from another driver and applied for the position with Tri-State, whose home office was in Chattanooga, Tennessee. He was called and told to report to General Shale at Cohutta, Georgia, if he wanted the job. He was required to pick up the truck in Chattanooga, and he was paid by the load. After picking up the truck he immediately brought it back to Cohutta, Georgia, and began delivering for Tri-State under its delivery service for General Shale from its Cohutta plant. He was injured in Tennessee on a trip from Cohutta, Georgia.

In regard to his claim for workmen's compensation the parties stipulated that the accident arose out of and in the course of employment and as to the degree of his disability and that he had received $80 per week under the provisions of the Tennessee workmen's compensation statute for a definite period of time. However, the only question involved is whether the Georgia workmen's compensation law applied. The administrative law judge found that the contract of employment was entered into in the State of Georgia, the employee lived in Georgia, and his regular place of employment was Georgia, and that this claim is clearly within the jurisdiction of the Georgia Workmen's Compensation Act as provided in Code § 114-411. On appeal to the board the findings and conclusions of the administrative law judge were made the findings of the board except as inconsistent with its findings with reference to the work-related accident occurring outside of Georgia. The...