Maryland Cas. Co. v. Bartlett

• Decision Date: 03 March 1928
• Docket Number: 17935.
• Citation: Maryland Cas. Co. v. Bartlett, 142 S.E. 189, 37 Ga.App. 777 (Ga. App. 1928)
• Parties: MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. BARTLETT.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

142 S.E. 189

37 Ga.App. 777

MARYLAND CASUALTY CO. et al. v. BARTLETT.

No. 17935.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

March 3, 1928

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

"Compensation," payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act(Laws 1920 p. 167), is compensation for pecuniary loss sustained by claimant from death of person who in pecuniary way applies his labor and services to support of claimant and, since pecuniary loss results from death of person on whom claimant is dependent for pecuniary contributions, there is no substantial difference between claim for compensation and claim for damages for "lost services."

[Ed Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Compensation.]

Where father who is head of family is in fact dependent on minor child award of compensation to father for death of child is not invalid as being for father and use of himself and wife and another minor child, under Workmen's Compensation Act, § 39(Laws 1920, p. 188).

Under Workmen's Compensation Act, § 59(Laws 1920, p. 198) authorizing judge to recommit case to Industrial Commission for further hearing, judgment recommitting case reciting that evidence is insufficient to establish dependency for period of three months prior to injury, and is insufficient as to expense of last illness, held sufficient to indicate question for determination on another hearing before commission.

Where appeal from award was sustained for insufficiency of evidence to sustain award, and case was recommitted to Industrial Commission under order affording claimant opportunity to present additional evidence, order of recommittal will be affirmed, where it does not appear that facts essential to support award are affirmatively disproved.

Where undisputed evidence shows that employee, for whose injury or death compensation is sought, was employed for period less than three months prior to accident, evidence does not affirmatively establish fact of dependency for three months required by Workmen's Compensation Act, § 39(Laws 1920, p. 188), as condition to allowance of compensation.

Under Workmen's Compensation Act, § 39(Laws 1920, p. 188), requiring "dependency" for three months as condition to allowance of compensation to claimant for injury to employee, "dependency" does not arise solely by reason of employment of employee and contribution by employee from wages to support of claimant, but may arise out of services rendered to claimant by employee, who is his child, in work about home.

[Ed. Note.-For other definitions, see Words and Phrases, First and Second Series, Dependency.]

Where compensation case was recommitted under Workmen's Compensation Act, § 59(Laws 1920, p. 198), for insufficiency of evidence to establish dependency for period of three months prior to injury, and to show expense of last illness, judgment recommitting case must be affirmed, where it did not affirmatively appear that dependency or expenses could not be established.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; E. E. Pomeroy, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by R. H. Bartlett, claimant, opposed by the Maryland Casualty Company and others.To review a judgment recommitting the case to the commission after appeal from award, insurer and others bring error.Affirmed.

Underwood & Haas and E. Smythe Gambrell, all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.

H. W. McLarty and Hendrix & Buchanan, all of Atlanta, for defendant in error.

Syllabus OPINION.

STEPHENS J.

1.The compensation payable under the Georgia Workmen's Compensation Act(Laws 1920, p. 167) is in the nature of compensation for pecuniary loss sustained by the claimant resulting from the death of a person who in a pecuniary way applies his labor and services to the support of the claimant; and, since such pecuniary loss results from the death of the person upon whom the claimant is dependent for pecuniary contributions, there is no substantial difference under the Compensation Act, between a...