American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Wigley

177 S.E. 568, 179 Ga. 764, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 398
CourtSupreme Court of Georgia
DecidedNovember 17, 1934
DocketNo. 10360
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 177 S.E. 568 (American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Wigley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Wigley, 177 S.E. 568, 179 Ga. 764, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 398 (Ga. 1934).

Opinion

Bussell, C. J.

Under subparagraph 1 of paragraph (d) of section 2 of-the workmen’s compensation act, where an injury occurs to an employee and the employer is required to compensate the employee, and at the same time a third person has injured the employee as a tort-feasor, if the injured employee establishes a legal liability against the third person who is a tort-feasor, the compensation awarded under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act shall be reduced by a contribution from the recovery against the tort-feasor upon the legal liability for the wrong inflicted by him. From this it is plain that voluntary settlements between one who may have been injured by the negligence of another, and such other, are not within the scope of this section of the amendment to the original workmen’s compensation act. It appears from the question in this case that it was expressly agreed [766]*766in the settlement that the defendant did not admit legal liability. Á reasonable inference which can be drawn from this language might be that the alleged tort-feasor, while denying any liability, 'was willing to make settlement and buy his peace rather than to be subjected to the trouble and expense of a lawsuit. Inasmuch as there could be no contribution in reduction of the compensation allowed under the provisions of the workmen’s compensation act, except where the recovery of damages against a third party is by the establishment of legal liability, it is needless to determine at this time whether, in a case of legal liability, the amount to be considered should be the gross recovery or the net recovery. The question propounded by the Court of Appeals is answered in the negative.

All the Justices concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Continental Casualty Co. v. Swift & Co.
148 S.E.2d 489 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1966)
United States Casualty Co. v. Watkins
88 S.E.2d 20 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1955)
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Stephens
47 S.E.2d 108 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1948)
Maryland Casualty Company v. Pitman
29 S.E.2d 102 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1944)
Disbrow v. Deering Implement Co.
9 N.W.2d 378 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1943)
Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. Babb
19 S.E.2d 550 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1942)
Walker v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.
17 S.E.2d 306 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1941)
Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.
188 S.E. 517 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
Travelers Insurance v. Bumstead
186 S.E. 742 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1936)
American Mutual Liability Insurance v. Wigley
177 S.E. 815 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1934)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
177 S.E. 568, 179 Ga. 764, 1934 Ga. LEXIS 398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/american-mutual-liability-insurance-v-wigley-ga-1934.