Nowell v. Stone Mountain Scenic R. R., 57602
| Decision Date | 19 June 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 57602,57602 |
| Citation | 257 S.E.2d 344,150 Ga.App. 325 |
| Parties | NOWELL v. STONE MOUNTAIN SCENIC RAILROAD. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
George P. Dillard, Gail C. Flake, Decatur, for appellant.
Stone, Pennington & Goetz, Charles M. Goetz, Jr., Atlanta, for appellee.
The Workers' Compensation Act, Code § 114-103, provides in part: "The rights and the remedies herein granted to an employee shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee . . . at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service, or death." In exchange for the right to recover scheduled compensation without proof of negligence on the part of the employer in those cases in which a right of recovery is granted, the employee forgoes other rights and remedies which he might otherwise have had, but if he accepts the terms of the Act he as well as the employer is limited to those things for which the Act makes provision. For example, pain and suffering, unless it is so severe as to result in economic disability, is not compensable. Hall v. St. Paul-Mercury Indem. Co., 96 Ga.App. 567, 101 S.E.2d 94 (1958). "It is likewise well settled that the compensation act covers the entire subject-matter of a claim for injuries by an employee against his employer, and that the remedy given by the act is in lieu of any remedy formerly afforded by an action at common law." Patterson v. Curtis Publishing Co., 58 Ga.App. 211, 198 S.E. 102 (1938), and see also Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga.App. 72, 74, 68 S.E.2d 384 (1951); Smith v. White Lift of Dalton, 145 Ga.App. 596, 244 S.E.2d 117 (1978).
Georgia is in the minority of states which do not allow compensation for non-disability producing disfigurement under the Workers' Compensation Act. However, no attack has been made, or can be made in this court on the constitutionality of the act in this regard. It follows that this common law suit by a young girl against her employer for burns to her neck and chest caused by the firing of a loaded gun in a staged entertainment, but which resulted in no physical or economic disability, is not maintainable and the trial court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.
Judgment affirmed.
SHULMAN, J., not participating.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hall v. Synalloy Corp.
...by the Act; compensability is irrelevant. Nowhere was the operation of this rule more apparent than in Nowell v. Stone Mountain Scenic Railroad, 150 Ga.App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979) where a badly burned girl was denied the right to bring a common law suit despite her inability to recover ......
-
Synalloy Corp. v. Newton
...any theory of tort ..." Williams Bros. Lumber Co. v. Meisel, 85 Ga.App. 72, 74, 68 S.E.2d 384 (1951). Accord, Nowell v. Stone Mtn. Scenic R., 150 Ga.App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979); Hall v. Synalloy Corp., 540 F.Supp. 263, 271, supra. While a statute of limitation is remedial in nature and ......
-
Murphy v. ARA Services, Inc., 64293
...of such employee ... at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death...." See Nowell v. Stone Mtn. Scenic R., 150 Ga.App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979). Therefore, in those instances where an employee's claim against his employer is one which is covered by the A......
-
Bright v. Nimmo
...by the statute as to injuries which do not fall within its terms" (182 Ga. at 238, 184 S.E. 871). Compare Nowell v. Stone Mt. Scenic RR., 150 Ga.App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344 (1979). Intentional injuries warrant special consideration. In Smith v. Rich's, Inc., 104 Ga.App. 883, 123 S.E.2d 316 (19......
-
The Emerging Bad Faith Cause of Action Takes on the Exclusive Remedy Doctrine - Robert R. Potter and Joan T.a. Gabel
...claims which do not fall within the Act are not contemplated by the exclusivity provision) with Nowell v. Stone Mountain Scenic R.R., 150 Ga. App. 325, 257 S.E.2d 344, 345 (1979) (holding that even injuries not compensable under the Act can still be within the purview of the Act for purpose......