Shiplett v. Moran

• Decision Date: 03 December 1938
• Docket Number: 26992.
• Citation: Shiplett v. Moran, 58 Ga.App. 854, 200 S.E. 449 (Ga. App. 1938)
• Parties: SHIPLETT et al. v. MORAN.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

200 S.E. 449

58 Ga.App. 854

SHIPLETT et al. v. MORAN.

No. 26992.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Second Division

December 3, 1938

Syllabus by the Court.

1. Wilful misconduct of an employee which would bar the collection of compensation under the Workmen's compensation act (Code, § 114-105) consists of a conscious or intentional violation "of definite law or rules of conduct, as distinguished from inadvertent, unconscious or involuntary violations." "Mere violations of instructions, orders, rules * * * and the doing of hazardous acts where the danger is obvious, do not, without more, as a matter of law, constitute misconduct." Such wilful misconduct must be more than mere negligence.

2. Wilful misconduct or intoxication which bars compensation under the workmen's compensation act (Code, § 114-105) must be such wilful misconduct or intoxication as proximately causes the injury. The burden of proof to show this is on the employer.

3. The evidence was insufficient to show conclusively and as a matter of law that the death of the claimant's husband although it was admitted that it resulted from injury arising out of and in the course of his employment, was caused from a violation by him of a rule or regulation adopted by the employer and approved by the Department of Industrial Relations, or by his wilful misconduct or intoxication. The award of compensation by the Department of Industrial Relations was authorized, and the judge of the superior court did not err in affirming this award on appeal.

Error from Superior Court, Toombs County; R. N. Hardeman, Judge.

Proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act by Mrs. C. C. Moran for compensation for the death of her husband, opposed by the Shiplett Lumber Company, employer, and another. To review a judgment affirming an award of the Department of Industrial Relations, defendants bring error.

Affirmed.

B. P Jackson, of Vidalia, for plaintiffs in error.

W. S Mann, of McRae, for defendant in error.

STEPHENS Presiding Judge.

This is a claim for compensation by Mrs. C. C. Moran against Shiplett Lumber Company, arising out of the death of her husband. Compensation was awarded by the Department of Industrial Relations, and this award, on appeal by the defendant to the superior court, was affirmed. From the judgment of affirmance the defendant comes to this court on bill of exceptions.

It appeared from the evidence that the claimant's husband, Mr. Moran, who was a foreman at the defendant's sawmill, went under a shaft in the mill, and his jacket or jumper, which was loose, caught in the shaft and he was whirled around and received injuries from which he died. It was admitted on the hearing, and is conceded here, that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. No question is raised by the defendant, who is the plaintiff in error, as to the correctness of the award as respects the amount of compensation awarded and the manner of its award. The defense was predicated solely on the ground that compensation was barred by the acts or conduct of the deceased, in that his death was due to his wearing of his coat or jumper in a loose condition without the ends thereof being inside of his trousers, to his being intoxicated, and to a wilful breach by him of rules or regulations of the defendant prohibiting the employees' wearing jackets or jumpers in such described condition, and drinking intoxicating liquor while on the job.

It is provided in the compensation act, Code, § 114-105 as follows: "No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to the employee's wilful misconduct, including intentionally self-inflicted injury, or growing out of his attempt to injure another, or due to intoxication or wilful failure or refusal to use a safety appliance or perform a duty required by statute, or the wilful breach of any rule or regulation adopted by the employer and approved by the Department of Industrial Relations, and brought to the knowledge of the employee prior to the accident." The Director of the Department of Industrial Relations, with the approval of the full board, found that the death of the claimant's husband was not due to his violation of any rule approved by the Department, or to any wilful misconduct on his part, or to his being in a state of intoxication. The director found that the claimant's husband went under the shaft in the usual way, at a place where the employees were wont to go, and that "the overall jacket or jumper was the cause of his being wound around the shaft." If the evidence authorized these findings by the director, the judgment awarding compensation must be affirmed.

It appears conclusively from the evidence that no rule or regulation of the employer respecting the wearing by the employees, while on duty, of their jackets or jumpers in the condition described, or respecting their drinking or being intoxicated while on the job, was brought to the attention of or...