Carpenter v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION

91 S.E.2d 199, 93 Ga. App. 213, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 684
CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia
DecidedJanuary 12, 1956
Docket35920
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 91 S.E.2d 199 (Carpenter v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Carpenter v. LOCKHEED AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, 91 S.E.2d 199, 93 Ga. App. 213, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 684 (Ga. Ct. App. 1956).

Opinion

Quillian, J.

1. In. order for the claimant in a workmen’s compensation case to be entitled to an award in his favor he must prove that his disability was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.

2. That the claimant is unable to prove the precise time at which the accident occurred, or the exact maimer in which it happened does not debar his right to compensation. He may prove that it arose out of and in the course of his employment by circumstantial evidence. Ideal Mutual Ins. Co. v. Ray, 92 Ga. App. 273 (88 S. E. 2d 428).

3. When in any civil case, including those heard by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, a party undertakes to support his right of recovery or defense solely by circumstantial evidence, in order for him to prevail, the “facts and circumstances” which he offers as proof must not only sustain the hypothesis upon which his cause of defense is predicated, but must tend to prove that it is more probable than some other inconsistent reasonable theory or hypothesis. Bailey v. Atlanta Gas Light Co., 58 Ga. App. 78 (197 S. E. 911).

4. Where, as in this case, the claimant relies upon circumstantial evidence to prove that his disability was caused by an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment, and from the facts and circumstances proved it appears as probable that the disability was caused by a physical infirmity of the claimant not in any way connected with his employment he is not entitled to an award of compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Felton, C. J., and Nichols, J., concur.

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

Related

Rains v. Ford Motor Co.
282 S.E.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1981)
Budd v. Saddler Realty, Inc.
257 S.E.2d 1 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1979)
Liberty National Life Insurance v. Liner
149 S.E.2d 523 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1966)
Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Taylor
140 S.E.2d 288 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1965)
Akins v. Federated Mutual Implement & Hardware Insurance
134 S.E.2d 854 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1964)
Shipman v. Employers Mutual Liability Insurance
125 S.E.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1962)
Trippe v. Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co.
114 S.E.2d 72 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1960)
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Davis
107 S.E.2d 571 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1959)
Skinner Poultry Company v. Mapp
106 S.E.2d 825 (Court of Appeals of Georgia, 1958)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
91 S.E.2d 199, 93 Ga. App. 213, 1956 Ga. App. LEXIS 684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carpenter-v-lockheed-aircraft-corporation-gactapp-1956.