Etheridge v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Etheridge v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

71 S.E.2d 526, 86 Ga. App. 369, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 957

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJuly 1, 1952

Docket34042

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 71 S.E.2d 526 (Etheridge v. Liberty Mutual Insurance 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

Etheridge v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 71 S.E.2d 526, 86 Ga. App. 369, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 957 (Ga. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

Carlisle, J.

1. An appeal from an award of compensation, made by one of the directors of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation to the full board, opens the entire case as a de novo proceeding; and the board, on review, acting as a fact-finding body, may reverse the award of the single director either from the evidence taken by the single director, or from additional evidence taken by the order of the full board. Burel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 56 Ga. App. 716 (3) (193 S. E. 791); Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Brand, 57 Ga. App. 526 (196 S. E. 264); Watkins v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 75 Ga. App. 462 (43 S. E. 2d, 549); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Jenkins, 63 Ga. App. 777 (12 S. E. 2d, 80); Austin v. General Accident &c. Assurance Corp., 56 Ga. App. 481 (193 S. E. 86); Merry Brothers Brick & Tile Co. v. Holmes, 57 Ga. App. 281 (1) (195 S. E. 223); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Bond, 62 Ga. App. 562 (1) (8 S. E. 2d, 715).

2. Findings of fact made by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, reversing the finding and award of a single director thereof, when supported by any competent evidence, are binding upon the court. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Roebuck, 77 Ga. App. 739 (49 S. E. 2d, 788); Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 76 Ga. App. 785 (47 S. E. 2d, 143).

3. It appears from the record in this case that although the single director found that the claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment by virtue of the claimant’s having been injured while riding home in one of the employer’s trucks, and found that the use of the employer’s trucks by the employees to ride to and from work was a practice permitted and/or acquiesced in by the employer—the full board found, from competent evidence in the record, that the practice of employees using the employer’s trucks was forbidden, not permitted and not acquiesced in, and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment; and the superior court did not err in affirming the award of the full board denying compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.

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

Carlisle, J.

1. An appeal from an award of compensation, made by one of the directors of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation to the full board, opens the entire case as a de novo proceeding; and the board, on review, acting as a fact-finding body, may reverse the award of the single director either from the evidence taken by the single director, or from additional evidence taken by the order of the full board. Burel v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Co., 56 Ga. App. 716 (3) (193 S. E. 791); Peninsular Life Insurance Co. v. Brand, 57 Ga. App. 526 (196 S. E. 264); Watkins v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 75 Ga. App. 462 (43 S. E. 2d, 549); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Jenkins, 63 Ga. App. 777 (12 S. E. 2d, 80); Austin v. General Accident &c. Assurance Corp., 56 Ga. App. 481 (193 S. E. 86); Merry Brothers Brick & Tile Co. v. Holmes, 57 Ga. App. 281 (1) (195 S. E. 223); American Mutual Liability Insurance Co. v. Bond, 62 Ga. App. 562 (1) (8 S. E. 2d, 715).

2. Findings of fact made by the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation, reversing the finding and award of a single director thereof, when supported by any competent evidence, are binding upon the court. Travelers Insurance Co. v. Roebuck, 77 Ga. App. 739 (49 S. E. 2d, 788); Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 76 Ga. App. 785 (47 S. E. 2d, 143).

3. It appears from the record in this case that although the single director found that the claimant’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment by virtue of the claimant’s having been injured while riding home in one of the employer’s trucks, and found that the use of the employer’s trucks by the employees to ride to and from work was a practice permitted and/or acquiesced in by the employer—the full board found, from competent evidence in the record, that the practice of employees using the employer’s trucks was forbidden, not permitted and not acquiesced in, and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of the claimant’s employment; and the superior court did not err in affirming the award of the full board denying compensation.

Judgment affirmed.

Gardner, P.J., and Townsend, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 S.E.2d 526, 86 Ga. App. 369, 1952 Ga. App. LEXIS 957, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/etheridge-v-liberty-mutual-insurance-co-gactapp-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack