Ocean Accident & Guar. v. Farr

• Decision Date: 29 May 1933
• Docket Number: No. 23013.,23013.
• Citation: 47 Ga.App. 110,169 S.E. 684
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTY CORPORATION, Limited, et al. v. FARR.

47 Ga.App. 110

169 S.E. 684

OCEAN ACCIDENT & GUARANTYCORPORATION, Limited, et al.

v.FARR.

No. 23013.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. 2.

May 29, 1933.

Syllabus by Editorial Staff.

Error from Superior Court, Chatham County; Peter W. Meldrim, Judge.

Proceeding under the Workmen's Compensation Act by J. M. Farr, claimant, opposed by the Ocean Accident & Guarantee Corporation, insurer, and another. To review a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the Industrial Commission, the insurer and the employer bring error.

Affirmed.

Ralph G. Sims, of Atlanta, and Ernest J. Haar, of Savannah, for plaintiffs in error.

Oliver & Oliver, of Savannah, for defendant in error.

Syllabus Opinion by the Court.

SUTTON, Judge.

1. Where an employee was injured on the premises of the employer during a half hour intermission at noon, given to employees by the employer for the purpose of eating lunch, and where such employee, not living close by the place of work, usually brought his lunch with him and ate it in the boiler room where he worked, and this custom had been acquiesced in by the employer, and this had been going on for a number of years, and where, before eating his lunch, the employee went upstairs to the washroom and washed his hands and face, and where, on going back down the stairs into the boiler room, he stepped upon a defective step, causing him to fall, from which he sustained injury, the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment under the Workmen's Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 167, as amended). Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Henderson, 37 Ga. App. 238 (3), 139 S. E. 688; Holliday v. Merchants & Miners Transportation Co., 32 Ga. App. 567 (1), 124 S. E. 89; Employers' Liability Assurance Corp. v. Montgomery, 45 Ga. App. 634, 165 S. E. 903; note 6 A. L. R. 1151. "As directly applied to the noon intermission, it is a long! and well-settled rule that the service tie, or contractual relations and obligations between master and servant, is not broken by such suspension of all activities directly beneficial to the employer." Haller v. Lansing, 195 Mich. 753, 758, 162 N. W. 335, 337, L. R, A. 1917E, 324; Thomas v. Proctor & Gamble Mfg. Co., 104 Kan. 432, 179 P. 372, 6 A. L. R. 1145, 1149. "Acts of ministration by a servant to himself, such as quenching his thirst, relieving his hunger, * * * are incidents of his employment; * * * consequently no break in the employment is caused by the mere fact that the workman is ministering to his personal comforts * * * to procure a drink, food, " etc. 1 Honnold, Workmen's Comp. 3S1; Boyd's Workmen's Comp. § 431; Sundine's...