Samuel v. Baitcher
| Decision Date | 02 February 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 36451,36451 |
| Citation | 274 S.E.2d 327,247 Ga. 71 |
| Parties | John SAMUEL v. Daniel BAITCHER et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Kenneth G. Levin and Steven Gottlieb, Atlanta, for John samuel.
Gary M. Goldsmith, Atlanta, for Daniel Baitcher et al.
In Samuel v. Baitcher, 154 Ga.App. 602, 269 S.E.2d 96 (1980), the Court of Appeals considered the question of whether an employee may sue an agent of his former employer for damages resulting from the agent's failure to procure for the employer workers' compensation insurance as required by law. The Court of Appeals held that no such cause of action exists. We granted certiorari for the purpose of reviewing this holding.
Samuel sustained an on-the-job injury while working at a restaurant, The Flame, Inc. This was a business owned by a corporation in which Barbara and Daniel Baitcher, appellees, were involved as shareholders, officers, directors and managers. Samuel received an award and judgment from the Georgia Board of Workers' Compensation. This award and judgment was uncollectable because The Flame did not have a workers' compensation policy in force at the time of the injury and ended up bankrupt and unanswerable in damages. Samuel then brought an action against the Baitchers in tort for failing to perform their statutory duty of providing workers' compensation benefits for the employees of The Flame, Inc. As damages, he seeks to recover a sum equal to the workers' compensation judgment which he has been unable to collect due to the failure of the Baitchers to procure the insurance.
The trial court granted the Baitchers' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, which was affirmed on appeal. The Court of Appeals found that The Flame, Inc. was legally required to carry workers' compensation insurance at the time of the injury. They further found that the Baitchers were the individuals responsible for procuring and maintaining such insurance for The Flame, Inc. and had, in fact, failed in this duty. However, the court concluded that Samuel's suit against the Baitchers was barred by Code Ann. § 114-103, the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act.
While acknowledging a corporate officer may be individually liable to another for failure to perform a duty if damage results, see Herring v. R. L. Mathis Dairy, 118 Ga.App. 132, 162 S.E.2d 863 (1968), the Court of Appeals held that this suit by Samuel could not be maintained because of the Workers' Compensation Act and their decisions in Fox v. Stanish, 150 Ga.App. 537, 258 S.E.2d 190 (1979) and Smith v. White Lift of Dalton, Inc., 145 Ga.App. 596, 244 S.E.2d 117 (1978). In these cases, the court held that Code Ann. §§ 114-103 and 114-603 prohibited the employee from suing the employers when they had failed to secure Workers' Compensation insurance.
Code Ann. § 114-103 provides: "The rights and 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 or service or death. ..." Code Ann. § 114-603 provides for a ten per cent penalty and attorney fees in addition to the compensation award to be assessed against an employer who does not comply with the provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act. Samuel's award from the Board is not collectible from the employer or an insurance carrier although he suffered an injury compensible under the Act. This failure of compensation is alleged to be the result of a breach of duty by the named defendants.
It is important to state what this case does not involve. This is not a case where an injured employee is seeking damages for failure of the employer to provide a safe work place or otherwise negligently causing an on-the-job injury, nor has the employee pursued a remedy which could result in any type of double recovery. The employee here has not attempted to elect a remedy outside of the Act, but is attempting to collect a judgment based on the award of the Workers' Compensation Board.
The Court of Appeals in the opinion below and in Fox refers to the exclusive remedy sections in Larson, Workmen's Compensation Law. The policy behind enforcement of the exclusive remedy is based upon a quid pro quo between the employer and employee. Under workers' compensation programs their interests are balanced, the employee giving up his common law right to sue for injuries on the job, and the employer being freed from direct liability for injuries by securing insurance which enables him to pass his cost on to the customers. In discussing this quid pro quo, Larson states: "If this is the justification for the exclusive remedy rule, it ought logically to follow that the employer should be spared damage liability only when compensation liability has actually been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Frett v. State Farm Emp. Workers' Comp.
...employee and protect[ ] employers from excessive damage awards" while enabling the employee to swiftly return to work. Samuel v. Baitcher , 247 Ga. 71, 73, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981). This is not a civil tort claim. Workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for an employee injured on the job......
-
Speir v. Krieger
...may pursue a claim at law against the agent of the employer [corporate officer] for an amount equal to the award." Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 73-74, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981). 4. None of the cases upon which Speir relies relates to a finding of privity between a corporation and its operati......
-
Walker v. Tensor Mach., Ltd., S15Q1222.
...given up and the benefits received by both the employer and the employee is the underlying policy of the law. See Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 72, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981).An employee who sustains an injury that is compensable under the workers' compensation law may, as in this case, pursue......
-
Brockington v. Certified Elec., Inc.
...Caldwell, 55 Ga.App. 17, 18, 189 S.E. 408 (1937). It also protects employers from potentially excessive awards, see Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 73, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981), and from further liability outside the Act. See United States v. Aretz, 248 Ga. 19, 20, 280 S.E.2d 345 (1981); O.C.G......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion Handley Martin
...S.E.2d 585 (1999). 170. O.C.GA. Sec. 34-9-2(a) (1998). 171. 238 Ga. App. at 662, 521 S.E.2d at 586. 172. Id. (citing Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 73-74, 274 S.E.2d 327, 329 (1981); Underwood v. Dunn, 221 Ga. App. 185, 186, 470 S.E.2d 781, 782 (1996)). 173. Id. at 663, 521 S.E.2d at 586. ......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, Katherine D. Dixon, and Marion Handley Martin
...valid workers' compensation claim and is granted a valid award by the Board, and the employer is insolvent. See, e.g., Samuel v. Baitcher, 247 Ga. 71, 274 S.E.2d 327 (1981); Myers v. Wilson, 167 Ga. App. 340, 306 S.E.2d 401 (1983); Lavender v. Spetalnick, 161 Ga. App. 75, 289 S.E.2d 291 (19......