Burt v. Underwood

Supreme Court of Georgia

Burt v. Underwood

367 S.E.2d 230, 258 Ga. 207, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 182

CourtSupreme Court of Georgia

DecidedApril 27, 1988

Docket45378

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 367 S.E.2d 230 (Burt v. Underwood) 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

Burt v. Underwood, 367 S.E.2d 230, 258 Ga. 207, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 182 (Ga. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunt, Justice.

We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to answer the question whether a supervisor of a borrowed servant is “an employee of the same employer” under OCGA § 34-9-11, allowing an injured employee “to bring an action against any third-party tortfeasor, other than an employee of the same employer.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals held that when the servant is borrowed and under the direct supervision of the borrowing employer, the negligent employee of the borrowing employer is an “employee of the same employer” under this code section, even where the borrowing employer did not provide workers’ compensation benefits.

Having heard the arguments and considered the record and briefs on this issue, we find no error in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

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

Hunt, Justice.

We granted certiorari to the Court of Appeals to answer the question whether a supervisor of a borrowed servant is “an employee of the same employer” under OCGA § 34-9-11, allowing an injured employee “to bring an action against any third-party tortfeasor, other than an employee of the same employer.” (Emphasis supplied.) The Court of Appeals held that when the servant is borrowed and under the direct supervision of the borrowing employer, the negligent employee of the borrowing employer is an “employee of the same employer” under this code section, even where the borrowing employer did not provide workers’ compensation benefits.

Having heard the arguments and considered the record and briefs on this issue, we find no error in the Court of Appeals’ opinion, and affirm.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

367 S.E.2d 230, 258 Ga. 207, 1988 Ga. LEXIS 182, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burt-v-underwood-ga-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack