Smith v. Continental Cas. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 October 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 38485,No. 1,38485,1 |
| Parties | C. T. SMITH v. CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY et al |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
1. The superior court did not err in affirming the full board's denial of compensation on the ground that no notice was given to the employer of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment.
2. Depositions not introduced in evidence before the triors of fact cannot be considered by this court.
James I. Parker, Cedartown, Richard W. Best, Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Gambrell, Harlan, Russell, Moye & Richardson, James C. Hill, Edward W. Killorin, Atlanta, for defendants in error
1. In this compensation case the following facts appeared without dispute: that the claimant for a long time before the alleged accidental injury, for which compensation was sought, suffered from a bad back ailment, totally unrelated to his employment, causing him pain in his back and legs; that prior t March 31, 1959 (the date of the alleged accident) the claimant requested and obtained a leave of absence from his work because of the pain in his back and legs; that after being out on the leave of absence, he returned and attempted to resume his work but worked only two days; that on the third day he went to his immediate superior and stated that and that his superior asked him if he would like to try to do some less strenuous work and claimant said that he did not feel that he could do it; that his superior gave him permission to go home; that when the claimant's attorney sought to go into the merits of the case the hearing director called upon the claimant's attorney for additional evidence on the question of notice to the employer of the accident and that no additional evidence was offered in the way of testimony by the claimant or by deposition. Under such circumstances it was not error for the director to stop the proceedings and enter an award denying compensation on the ground of lack of notice of an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and on appeal to the full board it was not error for the board to deny compensation on the ground of lack of notice and it was not error for the superior court to affirm the award of the board. Royal Indemnity Co. v. Coulter, 213 Ga. 277, 98 S.E.2d 899; Employers Mutual Liability Ins. Co. v. Holloway, 98...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maloy v. Dixon
...v. Zachry, 128 Ga. 290(1), 57 S.E. 513. They cannot be considered in ruling upon the enumerations of error. Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 102 Ga.App. 559(2), 116 S.E.2d 888; Howell v. Federated Mut. &c. Ins. Co., 114 Ga.App. 321(1), 151 S.E.2d 195; Jackson v. United States Fidelity & Guara......
-
Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Snyder
...the file sent to this court, it will not be considered if it was not introduced in evidence before the board. Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 102 Ga.App. 559(2), 116 S.E.2d 888; Howell v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Ins. Co., 114 Ga.App. 321(1), 151 S.E.2d 195.' Jackson v. U.S. Fid......
-
Argonaut Ins. Co. v. Allen
...See also Peters v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 113 Ga.App. 41(2), 147 S.E.2d 26. This holding is not in conflict with Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 102 Ga.App. 559, 116 S.E.2d 888; Howell v. Federated Mut., Etc., Ins. Co., 114 Ga.App. 321, 151 S.E.2d 195; and Jackson v. U.S.F. & G. Co., 119 Ga.......
-
Crystal Springs Bleachery v. Roach
...cases we have followed the rigid Coulter test. New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Kidd, 101 Ga.App. 910, 115 S.E.2d 427; Smith v. Continental Cas. Co., 102 Ga.App. 559, 116 S.E.2d 888; Kresge v. Holley, 104 Ga.App. 144, 121 S.E.2d 182; Anderson v. Houston Fire & Casualty Ins. Co., 104 Ga.App. 680, 1......