Maryland Cas. Co. et al. v. Pitman

• Decision Date: 04 February 1944
• Docket Number: 30337,30338.
• Citation: 29 S.E.2d 102,70 Ga.App. 670
• Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. PITMAN. PITMAN v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

29 S.E.2d 102

70 Ga.App. 670

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. PITMAN.

PITMAN v. MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al.

Nos. 30337, 30338.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division No. 2.

February 4, 1944

Rehearing Denied Feb. 22, 1944.

Syllabus by the Court.

Brandon Matthews, Long & Nall, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Noah J. Stone, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

FELTON Judge.

This case is the exception to the judgment of the superior court affirming an award of compensation to an injured employee. The only question for decision is whether a party called on to pay compensation is entitled to credit for an amount received by the employee in the settlement of an action for damages instituted by him against a third party tort-feasor in another state. The employer and insurance carrier concede that if the case falls under Code, § 114-403, it also falls under the rule laid down in Walker v. Employers Liability Assur. Corp., 66 Ga.App. 198, 17 S.E.2d 306. They contend that the case is controlled by Code, § 114-411, which provides: "Accidents outside of [the] State.--Where an accident happens while the employee is employed elsewhere than in this State, which would entitle him or his dependents to compensation if it had happened in this State, the employee or his dependents shall be entitled to compensation if the contract of employment was made in this State, and if the employer's place of business is in this State or if the residence of the employee is in this State: Provided, his contract of employment was not expressly for service exclusively outside of the State: Provided, however, that if an employee shall receive compensation or damages under the laws of any other State, nothing herein contained shall be construed so as to permit a total compensation for the same injury greater than is provided for in this Title." It is contended that the word "damages" in the last proviso refers to damages recovered in an action for damages against a third party tort-feasor and damages received from such a third party as compensation for an injury, whether resulting from a mere claim, an action or a judgment. We do not agree with this contention. Our view is that Code, § 114-403, as originally enacted was intended to cover all cases of subrogation for the reason that it would not seem reasonable that as to accidents within the State adjudication of a legal liability was intended to be a prerequisite to...