Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. 58134,58134 |
| Citation | Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 263 S.E.2d 475, 152 Ga.App. 583 (Ga. App. 1980) |
| Parties | TERRY v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Tyron Elliott, Manchester, for appellant.
John M. Taylor, La Grange, for appellees.
Appellants appeal the denial of their claims for workers' compensation benefits.We reverse and remand.
On January 3, 1977, the deceased was running errands in the company tow truck.While he was returning to his place of business, the tow truck was struck by a Seaboard Coastline train at the Wrightsville Crossing near Manchester, Georgia.The deceased was killed instantly.Appellants filed claims for workers' compensation benefits.
The administrative law judge who heard the case denied compensation on two grounds, failure to stop at a railroad crossing as required by Code§ 68A-701(a)(3), and intoxication.SeeCode§ 114-105.After a de novo hearing, the State Board of Workers' Compensation found that the deceased was not intoxicated, but nonetheless denied benefits on the ground that "the cause of the accident was the deceased's failure to stop at a grade crossing in violation of Code§ 68A-701((a))(3) . . ."On appeal to the Superior Court of Meriwether County, the board was reversed on the question of intoxication.The court upheld the denial of benefits on both grounds.
1.The State Board of Workers' Compensation found, as a matter of fact, that "the weight of the evidence showed (the deceased) was not intoxicated," notwithstanding that a blood test indicated that the deceased's blood had an alcohol content of .23 percent.SeeCode§ 68A-902.1(b)(3).Since there was evidence from which the board could have determined that the deceased was not intoxicated at the time of the accident, the trial court erred in reversing the board's finding with respect to intoxication.Mission Ins. Co. v. Ware, 143 Ga.App. 550, 239 S.E.2d 162(1977).
2.The board denied compensation on the ground that "the cause of the accident was the deceased's failure to stop at a grade crossing in violation of Code§ 68A-701((a))(3) . . ."However, the board made no finding that the deceased's failure to stop at the stop sign was "wilful.""The general rule is that mere violations of instructions, orders, rules, ordinances, and statutes, and the doing of hazardous acts where the danger is obvious, do not, without more, as a matter of law, constitute wilful misconduct; . . . Such violations or failures or refusals generally constitute mere negligence, and such negligence, however great, does not constitute wilful misconduct or wilful failure or refusal to perform a duty required by statute, and will not defeat recovery of compensation by the employee or his dependents."Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll,...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
-
Maddox v. Elbert County Chamber of Commerce, Inc.
...to believe the testimony of the claimant as opposed to the testimony of an expert witness. Hadley, supra; Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ga.App. 583(1), 263 S.E.2d 475; Tankersley, supra. The testimony of the claimant provided the "any evidence" in support of the ALJ and board's findin......
-
Communications, Inc. v. Cannon
...other language from the Supreme Court's opinion in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Carroll, supra, as quoted in Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ga.App. 583, 584, 263 S.E.2d 475 (1979): " 'The general rule is that mere violations of instructions, orders, rules, ordinances and statutes, and the do......
-
Fort Howard Paper Co. v. Hallisey
...that an employee's negligence in sustaining a work-related injury is not a bar to compensation. See Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 152 Ga.App. 583(2), 584, 263 S.E.2d 475 (1979); Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. Neely, 103 Ga.App. 616, 120 S.E.2d 137 (1961); Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Lyn......
-
Steed v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
...214 S.E.2d 381 (1975). 4. Lest it be argued that the remand of the case by this court was an exercise in futility, we emphasize that in Terry, supra, this court specifically ruled that the award could not be denied for a statutory infraction which failed to measure up to a wilful failure to......
-
Workers' Compensation - H. Michael Bagley, Daniel C. Kniffen, John G. Blackmon, Jr., and Phillip Comer Griffeth
...(1996), cert, granted (Oct. 31, 1996). 105. Id. at 326, 471 S.E.2d at 232. 106. Id. 107. Id. at 327, 471 S.E.2d at 233. 108. Id. 109. 152 Ga. App. 583, 263 S.E.2d 475 (1979). 110. Id. at 584, 263 S.E.2d at 476. 111. 221 Ga. App. at 326, 471 S.E.2d at 232-33. 112. Id. at 327, 471 S.E.2d at 2......