Drummond v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Drummond v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.

159 S.E. 740, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 483

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 17, 1931

Docket21163

StatusPublished

This text of 159 S.E. 740 (Drummond v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp.) 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

Drummond v. Employers Liability Assurance Corp., 159 S.E. 740, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 483 (Ga. Ct. App. 1931).

Pincite

Opinion

Jenkins, P. J.

In the instant claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act, where the evidence showed that the claimant, who was employed to pick up waste around a cotton-mill, was injured by reason of a ñre which occurred in the “hopper room” where he had gone during the lunch hour and while off duty, for the purpose of sleeping, and that his duty did not require him to go into the hopper room, and where the overseer of the employer testified that during the lunch hour the employees were permitted to “lounge anywhere except the hopper room,” but that the employees were not permitted to go into the hopper room during the noon hour, because of the danger of fire being started in the loose lint-cotton stored therein, the industrial commission was authorized to find that the injury to the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and to enter an award denying compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Isaac 8. Peebles Jr., Nathan Jolles, for plaintiff. James 8. Bussey Jr., for defendants.

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

Jenkins, P. J.

In the instant claim for compensation under the workmen’s compensation act, where the evidence showed that the claimant, who was employed to pick up waste around a cotton-mill, was injured by reason of a ñre which occurred in the “hopper room” where he had gone during the lunch hour and while off duty, for the purpose of sleeping, and that his duty did not require him to go into the hopper room, and where the overseer of the employer testified that during the lunch hour the employees were permitted to “lounge anywhere except the hopper room,” but that the employees were not permitted to go into the hopper room during the noon hour, because of the danger of fire being started in the loose lint-cotton stored therein, the industrial commission was authorized to find that the injury to the claimant did not arise out of and in the course of his employment, and to enter an award denying compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Stephens and Bell, JJ., concur. Isaac 8. Peebles Jr., Nathan Jolles, for plaintiff. James 8. Bussey Jr., for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.E. 740, 43 Ga. App. 595, 1931 Ga. App. LEXIS 483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/drummond-v-employers-liability-assurance-corp-gactapp-1931.