McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee Inc.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee Inc.

34 S.E.2d 562, 72 Ga. App. 564, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 639

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 14, 1945

Docket30876.

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 34 S.E.2d 562 (McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee Inc.) 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

McLaughlin v. Thompson, Boland & Lee Inc., 34 S.E.2d 562, 72 Ga. App. 564, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 639 (Ga. Ct. App. 1945).

Pincite

Opinion

Parker, J.

1. Where an employee has accepted the workmen’s compensation act as is therein provided, his rights against the employer to recover on account of injuries sustained by reason of the breach of any duty arising out of the relation are determinable solely under the provisions of the act, and are not determinable at common law. Code, § 114-103; Webb v. Tubize-Chatillon Corp., 45 Ga. App. 744 (165 S. E. 775); Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Pkg. Co., 51 Ga. App. 56 (179 S. E. 649).

2. Where the employer and employee are subject to the workmen’s compensation act, it is presumed that they have accepted the provisions thereof, and they are bound by its terms. Code, § 114-201; McCoy v. Southern Lbr. Co., 38 Ga. App. 251 (143 S. E. 611).

3. Where a servant is injured by a fellow servant or superior employee in a dispute, not provoked by the injured servant, arising over the conduct of the master’s business, the injury may be the result of an accident, in so far as the injured employee is concerned. Horowitz on Workmen’s Compensation, p. 86. See the following cases in which it has been held that an assault by a third person may be an accident as to the injured employee. Pinkerton &c. Agency v. Walker, 157 Ga. 548 (122 S. E. 202, 35 A. L. R. 557); Keen v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 34 Ga. App. 257 (129 S. E. 174).

4. The amended common-law action of the plaintiff in error to recover on account of injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an assault and battery committed by the defendant corporation’s general manager upon the plaintiff employee, in connection with the manager’s criticism of the employee’s work and manner of service, disclosed that the employer and employee were subject to the workmen’s compensation act, and the court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

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

Parker, J.

1. Where an employee has accepted the workmen’s compensation act as is therein provided, his rights against the employer to recover on account of injuries sustained by reason of the breach of any duty arising out of the relation are determinable solely under the provisions of the act, and are not determinable at common law. Code, § 114-103; Webb v. Tubize-Chatillon Corp., 45 Ga. App. 744 (165 S. E. 775); Stebbins v. Georgia Veneer & Pkg. Co., 51 Ga. App. 56 (179 S. E. 649).

2. Where the employer and employee are subject to the workmen’s compensation act, it is presumed that they have accepted the provisions thereof, and they are bound by its terms. Code, § 114-201; McCoy v. Southern Lbr. Co., 38 Ga. App. 251 (143 S. E. 611).

3. Where a servant is injured by a fellow servant or superior employee in a dispute, not provoked by the injured servant, arising over the conduct of the master’s business, the injury may be the result of an accident, in so far as the injured employee is concerned. Horowitz on Workmen’s Compensation, p. 86. See the following cases in which it has been held that an assault by a third person may be an accident as to the injured employee. Pinkerton &c. Agency v. Walker, 157 Ga. 548 (122 S. E. 202, 35 A. L. R. 557); Keen v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co., 34 Ga. App. 257 (129 S. E. 174).

4. The amended common-law action of the plaintiff in error to recover on account of injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an assault and battery committed by the defendant corporation’s general manager upon the plaintiff employee, in connection with the manager’s criticism of the employee’s work and manner of service, disclosed that the employer and employee were subject to the workmen’s compensation act, and the court did not err in sustaining the defendant’s general demurrer and dismissing the action.

Judgment affirmed.

Sutton, P. J., and Felton, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 S.E.2d 562, 72 Ga. App. 564, 1945 Ga. App. LEXIS 639, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mclaughlin-v-thompson-boland-lee-inc-gactapp-1945.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack