Castleberry v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Castleberry v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.

190 S.E.2d 831, 126 Ga. App. 425, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1175

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 12, 1972

Docket46975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 S.E.2d 831 (Castleberry v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co.) 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

Castleberry v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 190 S.E.2d 831, 126 Ga. App. 425, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1175 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Bell, Chief Judge.

1. In this workmen’s compensation case the deputy found as a fact that the employee’s death was proximately caused by his intoxication and denied the widow’s claim. Code § 114-105. On review by the full board, no additional evidence was offered and the board adopted the findings of fact of the deputy director and his award. Thus the board’s award is not subject to the claim of error that it acted only in an appellate capacity. *426 American Cas. Co. v. Wilson, 99 Ga. App. 219 (108 SE2d 137).

Argued March 6, 1972— Decided June 12, 1972. Ronald L. Davis, for appellant. Hopkins & Gresham, H. Lowell Hopkins, for appellees.

2. Several enumerations of error go to the question that the employer waived the defense of intoxication. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the findings of fact that the death of the employee was proximately caused when he, while intoxicated, drove his employer’s truck into the rear of another vehicle that was stopped at the traffic signal. It is claimed that intoxication of the employee was waived due to his repeated use of intoxicating liquor over a period of years with the knowledge and acquiescence of the employer. No authority has been cited to us and our research discloses no case that stands for the proposition that the provisions of Code § 114-105, which precludes the payment of compensation where death or injury is due to intoxication, may be waived by the employer. However, we need not decide this question for here there is not sufficient evidence to even raise the question. The only evidence which bears on this issue is testimony that the deceased consumed alcoholic beverages and occasionally had a drink while at work but there is no evidence that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic or that he was ever intoxicated previously while at work or ever drove his employer’s vehicle while intoxicated with the knowledge of the employer.

3. Once a finding was made that death was due to intoxication which was sufficiently supported by the evidence, compensation must be denied under the provisions of Code § 114-105. A determination as to whether the employee was in the course of employment or whether the risks of his employment contributed to his death was rendered immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

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

Bell, Chief Judge.

1. In this workmen’s compensation case the deputy found as a fact that the employee’s death was proximately caused by his intoxication and denied the widow’s claim. Code § 114-105. On review by the full board, no additional evidence was offered and the board adopted the findings of fact of the deputy director and his award. Thus the board’s award is not subject to the claim of error that it acted only in an appellate capacity. *426 American Cas. Co. v. Wilson, 99 Ga. App. 219 (108 SE2d 137).

Argued March 6, 1972— Decided June 12, 1972. Ronald L. Davis, for appellant. Hopkins & Gresham, H. Lowell Hopkins, for appellees.

2. Several enumerations of error go to the question that the employer waived the defense of intoxication. The evidence is amply sufficient to sustain the findings of fact that the death of the employee was proximately caused when he, while intoxicated, drove his employer’s truck into the rear of another vehicle that was stopped at the traffic signal. It is claimed that intoxication of the employee was waived due to his repeated use of intoxicating liquor over a period of years with the knowledge and acquiescence of the employer. No authority has been cited to us and our research discloses no case that stands for the proposition that the provisions of Code § 114-105, which precludes the payment of compensation where death or injury is due to intoxication, may be waived by the employer. However, we need not decide this question for here there is not sufficient evidence to even raise the question. The only evidence which bears on this issue is testimony that the deceased consumed alcoholic beverages and occasionally had a drink while at work but there is no evidence that the deceased was a chronic alcoholic or that he was ever intoxicated previously while at work or ever drove his employer’s vehicle while intoxicated with the knowledge of the employer.

3. Once a finding was made that death was due to intoxication which was sufficiently supported by the evidence, compensation must be denied under the provisions of Code § 114-105. A determination as to whether the employee was in the course of employment or whether the risks of his employment contributed to his death was rendered immaterial.

Judgment affirmed.

Eberhardt, P. J., and Evans, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

190 S.E.2d 831, 126 Ga. App. 425, 1972 Ga. App. LEXIS 1175, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/castleberry-v-united-states-fidelity-guaranty-co-gactapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack