Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Adams

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Adams

28 S.E.2d 79, 70 Ga. App. 297

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedNovember 16, 1943

Docket30244, 30245.

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 28 S.E.2d 79 (Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Adams) 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

Fidelity & Casualty Co. v. Adams, 28 S.E.2d 79, 70 Ga. App. 297 (Ga. Ct. App. 1943).

Pincite

Opinion

Felton, J.

If decisions by this court hold to the contrary) including Bur dick v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 54 Ga. App. 868 (188 S. E. 923); Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 45 Ga. App. 392 (165 S. E. 167); and U. S. Casualty Co. v. Henson, 43 Ga. App. 198 (158 S. E. 614), we are controlled by the principles announced, and the reasoning followed in the cases of Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277 (9 S. E. 2d, 84), and Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sprayberry, 195 Ga. 393 (24 S. E. 2d, 315). We do not think it can be questioned that physical exertion contributes to a heat stroke or exhaustion suffered while one is engaged in physical effort or immediately following. If the employmént of the employee contributes to the injury it is an accident under our compensation law and is compensable, it matters not what combined with the employment to produce it. Where the work of an employee contributes to an injury it is accidental, if not coming under one or more of those exceptions named in our statutes, even if the work done is usual and done -in the customary manner (Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sprayberry, supra), or whether the work attempted is too great 'for the man undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion, or the condition of health. Williams v. Maryland Casualty Co., 67 Ga. App. 649 (2) (21 S. E. 2d, 478). If an employee’s physical weakness combines with physical exertion to cause an injury and is considered an accident under our compensation law, an injury produced by the heat of the sun plus the physical exertion of an employee is likewise an accident under the law. In the latter case the injury could not be said to be caused solely by an act of God any more than it could be said to be caused solely by the employee’s physical weakness or infirmity in the former case. Under the cases cited above it does not matter that other employees, under identical circumstances, do not suffer a like injury. For similar conclusions in ■ heat-stroke *299 cases see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Clark, 59 Fed. 2d, 595, and Ætna Life Insurance Co. v. Hoage, 63 Fed. 2d, 818, and cit.

The court did not err in basing the award on the regular weekly-wage being earned at the time of the injury. See Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Sapp, 69 Ga. App. 669 (26 S. E. 2d, 726).

Judgment affirmed on the main and cross-hills of exceptions.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

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

Felton, J.

If decisions by this court hold to the contrary) including Bur dick v. U. S. F. & G. Co., 54 Ga. App. 868 (188 S. E. 923); Jones v. American Mutual Liability Insurance Co., 45 Ga. App. 392 (165 S. E. 167); and U. S. Casualty Co. v. Henson, 43 Ga. App. 198 (158 S. E. 614), we are controlled by the principles announced, and the reasoning followed in the cases of Lumbermen’s Mutual Casualty Co. v. Griggs, 190 Ga. 277 (9 S. E. 2d, 84), and Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sprayberry, 195 Ga. 393 (24 S. E. 2d, 315). We do not think it can be questioned that physical exertion contributes to a heat stroke or exhaustion suffered while one is engaged in physical effort or immediately following. If the employmént of the employee contributes to the injury it is an accident under our compensation law and is compensable, it matters not what combined with the employment to produce it. Where the work of an employee contributes to an injury it is accidental, if not coming under one or more of those exceptions named in our statutes, even if the work done is usual and done -in the customary manner (Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sprayberry, supra), or whether the work attempted is too great 'for the man undertaking the work, whatever the degree of exertion, or the condition of health. Williams v. Maryland Casualty Co., 67 Ga. App. 649 (2) (21 S. E. 2d, 478). If an employee’s physical weakness combines with physical exertion to cause an injury and is considered an accident under our compensation law, an injury produced by the heat of the sun plus the physical exertion of an employee is likewise an accident under the law. In the latter case the injury could not be said to be caused solely by an act of God any more than it could be said to be caused solely by the employee’s physical weakness or infirmity in the former case. Under the cases cited above it does not matter that other employees, under identical circumstances, do not suffer a like injury. For similar conclusions in ■ heat-stroke *299 cases see Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Clark, 59 Fed. 2d, 595, and Ætna Life Insurance Co. v. Hoage, 63 Fed. 2d, 818, and cit.

The court did not err in basing the award on the regular weekly-wage being earned at the time of the injury. See Bituminous Casualty Corporation v. Sapp, 69 Ga. App. 669 (26 S. E. 2d, 726).

Judgment affirmed on the main and cross-hills of exceptions.

Stephens, P. J., and Sutton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 S.E.2d 79, 70 Ga. App. 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fidelity-casualty-co-v-adams-gactapp-1943.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack