Pike v. Maryland Cas. Co., 39771
| Decision Date | 02 November 1962 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. 39771,39771,1 |
| Citation | 129 S.E.2d 78,107 Ga.App. 49 |
| Parties | Mrs. W. L. PIKE v. MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In a workmen's compensation case, when the evidence showed that the deceased employee was a district office and sales manager with authority to sell and to employ other salesmen and with considerable latitude in his dealings, the hearing director was not required as a matter of law to conclude that the employee's death, while traveling incident to the recruitment of a 'bird dog' to talk with prospects for the sale of houses, did not arise out of his employment, even though the 'bird dog' was not to become an employee of the deceased's employer.
James W. Hall, Valdosta, for plaintiff in error.
Bennet, Gilbert, Gilbert & Whittle, L. J. Bennet, John M. Gayner, III, Brunswick, for defendants in error.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the superior court affirming an award of the State Board of Workmen's Compensation denying compensation to the plaintiff in error, hereinafter called claimant. The claimant is the widow of a deceased employee of the defendant in error, hereinafter called the employer. There was testimony before the director to the effect that the deceased was the employer's district office and sales manager with headquarters in Jesup, Georgia, and that his duties included selling houses and he had authority to hire other salesmen. The employer's state manager testified that their salesmen applied themselves when and where they thought it best; that they worked late in the evenings; that there was no such thing as being off duty; that they had considerable latitude in their dealings to get around and get the job done, in 'selling, talking to somebody about a job, working for him and so forth.' On one Saturday evening at about 10 the deceased by prearrangement met one Lahiff at a night club 50 miles, more or less, from Jesup and talked with Lahiff about Lahiff's trying to sell some houses for the deceased. Lahiff was in the Army and was prohibited by Army regulations from working in other employment without the permission of his superiors, and he did not intend to request such permission. The deceased proposed to Lahiff that he talk to some prospects in the Fort Stewart area and if any sales resulted Lahiff would get $80 and the deceased or some other person would get $20 of the $100 commission on each house sold, but Lahiff's name would not appear on any of the papers in the transaction. Lahiff accepted the proposal but no houses were ever sold through his efforts. After this conversation between the deceased and Lahiff they visited socially. Lahiff left the night club at about 2:00 a. m., at which time the deceased had not yet left. The deceased was killed later that morning in an accident on a curve in the highway while driving a car furnished him by the employer, presumably as he was returning home from the night club.
The director's findings of facts include the following: Mr. Lahiff was not to become an employee of Modern Homes Construction Company but was merely to have a 'working arrangement' with Mr. Pike [the deceased].' The record indicates that the director thought that this fact demanded his conclusion that the deceased was not within the scope of his employment at the time he met his death and demanded the denial of compensation. But we are of the opinion that the fact that the deceased did not engage Lahiff as an employee of Modern Homes, but only enlisted his help to sell houses unofficially, does not establish as a matter of law that the deceased was not within the scope of his employment. The testimony shows that the deceased...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stokes v. Coweta Cnty. Bd. of Educ.
...the conditions under which the employment was performed and the resulting injury.”) (citations omitted); Pike v. Maryland Cas. Co., 107 Ga.App. 49, 51, 129 S.E.2d 78 (1962) (An injury may arise out of the employment, even if the employee is injured while doing something that is beyond the s......
-
Graves v. Builders Steel Supply, 75690
...whether claimant's injury arose out of his employment. In making our decision, we apply the holding enunciated in Pike v. Md. Cas. Co., 107 Ga.App. 49, 129 S.E.2d 78: "If an employee is injured while doing something in the interest of his employer, which is reasonably necessary or incident ......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Souther
...benefit from it, it may nevertheless be fairly regarded as arising out of and in the course of his employment. Pike v. Maryland Casualty Co., 107 Ga.App. 49, 51, 129 S.E.2d 78; United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al. v. Croft, 93 Ga.App. 114(2), 91 S.E.2d 110; Fidelity & Casualty Co. v......
-
Edwards v. State
...to the appellant's regular work. Cf. Hall v. West Point Pepperell, 133 Ga.App. 24, 209 S.E.2d 659 (1974); Pike v. Maryland Cas. Co., 107 Ga.App. 49, 129 S.E.2d 78 (1962). Moreover, if the Department of Labor's benefit in this case was the office manager's opportunity to remain at his desk a......