Pridgen v. Murphy

• Docket Number: 21054.
• Decision Date: 03 October 1931
• Citation: 160 S.E. 701,44 Ga.App. 147
• Parties: PRIDGEN v. MURPHY et al.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

160 S.E. 701

44 Ga.App. 147

PRIDGEN v. MURPHY et al.

No. 21054.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

October 3, 1931

Syllabus by the Court.

Term "farm laborers" in Workmen's Compensation Act means laborers employed in or about business of farming; word "farming" within Compensation Act signifies cultivation of land for production of agricultural crops with incidental enterprises; operation of turpentine business is not "farming"; and person employed as woods rider in turpentine business is not "farm laborer," and may recover under Workmen's Compensation Act (Civ Code 1910, § 4, par. 1; Laws 1920, p. 177, § 15).

In the construction of statutes, "the ordinary signification shall be applied to all words, except words of art, or connected with a particular trade or subject-matter, when they shall have the signification attached to them by experts in such trade, or with reference to such subject-matter." Civil Code 1910, § 4, par. 1. The term "farm laborers," as used in section 15 of the Compensation Act (Laws 1920, p. 177), excepting from its operation certain classes of employees, means laborers who are employed in or about the business of farming, and the word "farming," in its ordinary sense, signifies the cultivation of land for the production of agricultural crops, with incidental enterprises, and does not include the operation of a turpentine business, which is carried on by extracting the sap of pine trees and converting it into rosin and spirits of turpentine. Hence a person employed as a woods rider in the turpentine business is not a farm laborer within the meaning of the Compensation Act. See, in this connection 2 C.J. 988; 25 C.J. 673; Kent v. Lane, 168 Ga. 133 147 S.E. 61, and cases cited. This is true notwithstanding one engaged in this business is sometimes referred to as running a "turpentine farm" and the trees may be worked in groups described as ""crops." It follows that where as many as ten persons are employed in such a business they are subject to the provisions of the Compensation Act.

Evidence warranted finding that death of woods rider in turpentine business, resulting from testing out, with acquiescence of general manager, horse which fellow employee was considering buying, arose out of and in course of employment.

In a case tried before the Industrial Commission, where the evidence showed that a person was employed as a woods rider in a turpentine business, and was expected at a later season to ride a horse in making his rounds, and another employee, who had been directed by the general manager of the business to purchase a horse for this purpose, was at a sales stable inspecting a horse with the view of buying it, if it appeared to be suitable, and that such woods rider, being casually upon the scene was asked by the agent or employee conducting the negotiations if he "wanted to try the horse," and, on replying in the affirmative, was permitted to mount the horse for this purpose, when the horse reared and fell, with the result that the rider sustained injuries from which he died; and, where it further appeared that such general manager, or general agent, was also present and heard the conversation between the two employees, and saw the woods rider when he mounted the horse for the purpose of trying him, and made no objection, the evidence warranted a finding by the Industrial Commission that the employer by such general manager impliedly authorized the employee to ride the horse for the purpose of assisting in determining its suitability for his use, and therefore that the injury and death of such employee arose out of and in the course of his employment. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga.App. 682 (2), 118 S.E. 786; Moore v. Ross, 41 Ga.App. 509 (1), 153 S.E. 575.

Findings of Industrial Commission within its power are conclusive, in absence of fraud.

"Upon an appeal to the superior court from any final award or any other final decision of the Industrial Commission, the findings of fact made by the Commission within its power are, in the absence of fraud, conclusive." Maryland Casualty Co. v. England, 160 Ga. 810 (1), 129 S.E. 75.

Under the facts of this case, the judge of the superior court erred in sustaining the appeal of the employer and setting aside the award of the Industrial Commission.

Error from Superior Court, Colquitt County; W. E. Thomas, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by ...