Williams v. Atlanta Family Restaurants, Inc., A92A0665

• Decision Date: 15 May 1992
• Docket Number: No. A92A0665,A92A0665
• Citation: 204 Ga.App. 343,419 S.E.2d 328
• Parties: WILLIAMS v. ATLANTA FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC.
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 328

419 S.E.2d 328

204 Ga.App. 343

WILLIAMS v. ATLANTA FAMILY RESTAURANTS, INC.

No. A92A0665.

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

May 15, 1992.

Reconsideration Denied May 27, 1992.

Certiorari Denied July 8, 1992.

Byars & Slappey, E. Scott Slappey, Atlanta, for appellant.

Sligh, Presmanes & Jackson, Gregory T. Presmanes, James G. Jackson, Atlanta, for appellee.

JOHNSON, Judge.

Amber Noel Williams (Williams) appeals the denial of her claim for workers' compensation benefits for injuries which she alleges arose out of and were sustained in the course of her employment with Atlanta Family Restaurants, Inc. (AFR). The issues in this case were first heard by an administrative law judge who found Williams' claim not to be compensable. On appeal, the State Board of Workers' Compensation affirmed the denial of benefits. The Superior Court of Banks County affirmed the Board's decision by operation of law. This is a discretionary appeal granted pursuant to OCGA § 5-6-35.

Following a hearing, the administrative law judge made the following findings of fact. Williams went to Commerce, Georgia, to assist in the training of waitresses for a new Shoney's restaurant owned by AFR. She was housed at the Econo Lodge motel along with several other members of the training staff. After working for several days, she and some other employees decided that their uniforms needed washing. The supervisory personnel were staying at a Holiday Inn motel nearby which had laundry facilities. It was decided that while the laundry was being done, all of the employees would have something to eat and drink at the lounge at the Holiday Inn. There was a live band playing at the lounge and it is uncontroverted that everyone was drinking. At approximately 11:00 p.m., Williams' roommate informed her that the laundry was finished and that she was returning to the Econo Lodge. Williams had met some people not associated with AFR and decided not to accompany her, but to stay and dance. Later in the evening, prior to retiring, Williams' supervisors offered to give her a ride back to her motel. She again refused, stating that she preferred to remain with her new friends who would drive her back to the motel. Williams left the Holiday Inn around midnight with a woman and three men whom she had met in the lounge. After dropping off the only other woman in the group and her boyfriend, Williams was taken down a dirt road, raped and sodomized by the remaining two men.

In denying Williams' claim for benefits, the administrative law judge found that Williams "stepped aside from her job" at the time she refused her supervisors' offer of a ride and had "embarked on a personal mission unrelated to her job." (Order of Judge Stargel dated April 2, 1991, paragraph ). We agree.

Williams' three enumerations of error address the same issue, that the State Board erred in failing to find that her injuries arose out of and in the course of her employment. "To be compensable under workers' compensation, an injury or death of an employee must be one 'arising out of' and 'in the course of' the employment. OCGA § 34-9-1(4). These two terms are not synonymous. (Cit.) An injury or death 'arises out of employment' when it is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, that there is a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. (Cit.) 'In the course of' employment 'refers to time, place and circumstances under which the accident took place ...' (Cit.)" Blair v. Ga. Baptist, etc., 189 Ga.App. 579, 580-581, 377 S.E.2d 21 (1988). "An accident 'arises in the course of the employment' within the meaning of the compensation Act when it occurs within the period of employment at a place where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties while he is fulfilling his duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto." Barge v. City of College Park, 148 Ga.App. 480, 481(1), 251 S.E.2d 580 (1978). The courts of this state, in effectuating the humane purposes for which the Workers' Compensation Act was enacted, have taken a broad view in evaluating those activities which are incidental to employment, particularly in those cases which require employees to travel away from home.

Williams argues that this case is "incredibly similar" to McDonald v. State Hwy. Dept., 127 Ga.App. 171, 192 S.E.2d 919 (1972). In McDonald, the employee was required to stay in a hotel while working at an out-of-town job site. After an evening...