Lanier v. Bros, 21655.
| Decision Date | 18 February 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 21655.,21655. |
| Citation | 163 S.E. 263,44 Ga.App. 831 |
| Parties | LANIER. v. BROWN BROS. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
Error from Superior Court, Brantley County; M. D. Dickerson, Judge.
Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by O. R. Lanier, employee, opposed by Brown Bros., employer. Decision of the Industrial Commission denying compensation was affirmed by the superior court, and claimant brings error.
Affirmed.
H. F. Rawls, of Nahunta, for plaintiff in error.
D. M. Clark, of Jesup, for defendant in error.
Syllabus Opinion by the Court.
1. Although an employee may receive an injury while engaged in the performance of the duties of his employment, the injury, under the expressed terms of section 2 (d) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, as amended (Ga. Laws, 1920, p. 167 and Ga. Laws 1922, p. 185), is not compensable where it was "caused by the wilful act of [a] third person directed against an employee for reasons personal to such employee.".
2. Where an employee whose duty it is to drive a truck has been called aside by his employer, and, while engaged with the latter in conversation, becomes involved in a personal quarrel with a coemployee over a matter entirely disassociated with the employment of either of the employees, the same being a quarrel between their respective wives, and the coemployee goes away and comes back with a gun, with which he shoots the employee with whom he has been quarreling, and thereby injures him, and where no motive for the shooting appears other than the animosity engendered by the quarrel between the two employees, the injury thus sustained is caused by the "willful act" of the person doing the shooting, "directed against the [other] employee for reasons personal to such employee, " and is not compensable.
3. The Industrial Commission therefore properly denied compensation, and the superior court did not err in affirming that judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Handcrafted Furniture, Inc. v. Black
...Corp., 6 A.D.2d 921, 175 N.Y.S.2d 746 (1958). Compare Murphy v. ARA Svcs., 164 Ga.App. 859, 298 S.E.2d 528 (1982); Lanier v. Brown Bros., 44 Ga.App. 831, 163 S.E. 263 (1932). 2. Defendant's second enumeration cites as error the ALJ's excluding or limiting testimony of witnesses concerning s......
-
Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indem. Co
...for reasons personal to such employee" is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Code, § 114-102; Lanier v. Brown Bros., 44 Ga.App. 831, 163 S.E. 263; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al. v. Fried, for use, etc., 64 Ga.App. 186, 12 S.E.2d 406; Hartford Acc. & Indem. C......
-
Hughes v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co.
...for reasons personal to such employee' is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Code, § 114-102; Lanier v. Brown Bros., 44 Ga.App. 831, 163 S.E. 263; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al. v. for use, etc., 64 Ga.App. 186, 12 S.E.2d 406; Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. et a......
-
Hartford Accident & Indem. Co v. Zachery
...for reasons personal to such employee" is not compensable under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Code, § 114-102; Lanier v. Brown Bros. 44 Ga. App. 831(1), 163 S.E. 263; United States Fidelity, etc, Co. v. Fried, 64 Ga.App. 186, 12 S.E.2d 406. 3. The sole issue in the present case being, as ......