Labelle v. Lister
| Decision Date | 12 July 1989 |
| Docket Number | A89A0831,Nos. A89A0830,s. A89A0830 |
| Citation | 385 S.E.2d 118,192 Ga.App. 464 |
| Parties | LABELLE v. LISTER. LISTER v. LABELLE. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Dozier, Akin & Lee, L.Z. Dozier, Macon, for appellant.
Jones, Cork & Miller, Wallace Miller III, Macon, for appellee.
Appellant/cross-appellee Melanie Labelle and appellee/cross-appellant Tammy Lister are both employed by Brown & Williamson Tobacco Company in Macon, Georgia, and both had been working the 11:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m. shift when the incident which underlies the instant appeal took place. Both parties completed their shift, left the building where both worked, entered the adjacent company-maintained parking lot, and, after pausing momentarily to discuss an upcoming private social event, entered their vehicles and prepared to leave the parking lot. Ms. Lister's automobile struck Ms. Labelle's pick-up truck at approximately 7:08 a.m., according to the security guard on duty, with the result that Ms. Labelle's arm was broken.
Ms. Labelle filed a complaint against Ms. Lister seeking compensation for her injury. The latter answered, denying any negligence and citing as defenses, inter alia, plaintiff's negligence; comparative negligence; legal accident; and the immunity of a fellow servant under workers' compensation law. The complaint was subsequently amended to include a claim for loss of income.
Ms. Lister moved for summary judgment under OCGA § 34-9-11, which deals with the exclusivity of workers' compensation as the remedy for injuries among fellow employees. The brief supporting the motion noted, inter alia, that Ms. Labelle had filed a claim with the State Board of Workers' Compensation in connection with the incident. Labelle contended, in response to the motion, that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary adjudication, and the trial court thereafter entered an order denying the motion on the basis urged by Ms. Labelle.
Shortly before trial, Ms. Labelle filed a motion in limine prohibiting the defendant from introducing any evidence to the effect that Ms. Labelle had said the collision was unavoidable. Ms. Lister filed a motion in limine to exclude evidence tending to establish that after the collision Ms. Lister had stated that she was at fault and that her insurance would cover the damage.
The jury, obviously concerned about the workers' compensation aspect of the case (the foreman had sent the court a note asking for clarification of certain workers' compensation considerations, and the jury's initial verdict had read, "For workers' compensation"), returned a verdict for defendant Lister. Ms. Labelle appealed, and Ms. Lister filed what she designates as a "protective cross-appeal." Ms. Labelle enumerates as error, in Case No. A89A0830, certain evidentiary rulings and jury instructions. Ms. Lister's sole enumeration in Case No. A89A0831 is that the trial court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict on the fellow-servant tort immunity defense. She contends that a reversal of this ruling would in effect render moot most, if not all, of appellant/cross-appellee's enumerations. Held:
1. It is well settled that when an injury arises out of and in the course of employement, the employee's sole remedy is against the employer, pursuant to OCGA § 34-9-11. It is also well settled that the period of employment generally includes a reasonable time for ingress to and egress from the work station. Knight-Ridder Newspaper Sales v. Desselle, 176 Ga.App. 174, 335 S.E.2d 458 (1985). In West-Point Pepperell v. McEntire, 150 Ga.App. 728, 258 S.E.2d 530 (1979), this court affirmed the applicability of workers' compensation law in the case, holding at 729, 258 S.E.2d 530 that the parking lot was a part of the employer's premises and that an employee "remains in the course of ... employment" during a reasonable time for egress. In United States Cas. Co. v....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonner-Hill v. Southland Waste Sys. of Ga., Inc.
...Longuepee, 269 Ga.App. at 885, 605 S.E.2d 455; Connell v. Head, 253 Ga.App. 443, 444–445, 559 S.E.2d 73 (2002) ; Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464, 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989) (injury from automobile accident between two employees leaving work for the day in the employer's parking lot was compen......
-
Johnson v. Publix Supermarkets
...that there must be a causal connection between the employment and the injury (such as the special concurrence in Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464, 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989)), its requirement of a "peculiar danger" is no longer good law and was overruled by Nat. Fire Ins. Co. v. Edwards, supra......
-
Hadsock v. J.H. Harvey Co., Inc.
...is limited to that which is provided through the legislature by the Workers' Compensation Act. OCGA § 34-9-11(a); Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464(1), 385 S.E.2d 118 (1989). The issue is whether the injury or death was job-related. When the issue is presented to establish a bar in a tort ......
-
Peoples v. Emory University
...v. Bruno's/Food Max, 200 Ga.App. 395, 396(1), 408 S.E.2d 456; Crawford v. Meyer, 195 Ga.App. 867, 395 S.E.2d 327; Labelle v. Lister, 192 Ga.App. 464, 465(1), 385 S.E.2d 118; Southern Bell Tel., etc., Co. v. Conyers Toyota, 190 Ga.App. 792(1), 793, 380 S.E.2d 296; West Point Pepperell v. McE......