MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF SAVANNAH v. Stevens, No. S03G1536.

• Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
• Writing for the Court: FLETCHER, Chief Justice.
• Citation: 278 Ga. 166,598 S.E.2d 456
• Decision Date: 07 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. S03G1536.
• Parties: MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH v. STEVENS.

598 S.E.2d 456
278 Ga. 166

MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF SAVANNAH
v.
STEVENS

No. S03G1536.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

June 7, 2004.

Reconsideration Denied July 12, 2004.

598 S.E.2d 457

James B. Blackburn, Oliver, Maner & Gray, Patrick T. O'Connor, Patricia T. Paul, for appellant

Karsman, Brooks & Callaway, Timothy F. Callaway III, Harris O'Dell Jr., Savannah, for appellee.

FLETCHER, Chief Justice.

We granted certiorari to determine whether the Court of Appeals correctly held that the injuries suffered by police office Eunita Stevens in a car accident while on her way to work arose out of and in the course of her employment.¹ Because Stevens' injuries were in no way related to her duties as a police officer, they did not arise out of her employment. Therefore, we reverse.

Prior to the accident on November 30, 1999, Stevens worked as an administrative corporal in the Savannah Police Department. The accident occurred as Stevens was driving to work in her personal car and wearing her police uniform. The Administrative Law Judge found that the accident arose out of and in the course of Stevens' employment because, according to the policies of the Savannah Police Department, "she was subject to be called to duty 24 hours per day and was expected to preserve the peace and enforce the law even when off duty." The ALJ Appellate Division, Superior Court, and Court of Appeals all affirmed, finding the decision to be supported by some evidence. That decision, however, unjustifiably extends the scope of a public employer's liability for employee injuries under established workers' compensation law. It would require workers' compensation liability to issue any time an off-duty, uniformed police officer were injured within the city or county limits where they are charged with enforcing the law, no matter whether the injury in any way arose out of the officer's employment.

1. Generally, an injury is compensable only if it arises out of and in the course of the employment.² The test presents two independent and distinct criteria, and an injury is not compensable unless it satisfies both.³

An injury arises in the course of certain employment if the employee is engaged in that employment at the time the

598 S.E.2d 458

injury occurs.⁴ Generally, "a workman injured while going to or from his [278 Ga. 167] place of work is not in the course of his employment."⁵ The unique role of police officers, however, will sometimes require a departure from this general rule. In Barge v. City of College Park, the Court of Appeals ruled that police officers would be considered within the course of their employment when they are "on duty or on call, that is, subject to duty."⁶ This exception to the general rule, known as the continuous employment doctrine, recognizes that police officers are often called to enforce the law at any time within their jurisdiction, regardless of whether or not they are actually on-duty at the time

Although Stevens was off-duty at the time of the accident, Savannah's policy required that Stevens enforce the law at any time while she was within the Savannah City limits. Accordingly,...