Westbrook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Westbrook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

156 S.E.2d 654, 116 Ga. App. 37, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 682

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedJune 20, 1967

Docket42770

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 S.E.2d 654 (Westbrook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity 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

Westbrook v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co., 156 S.E.2d 654, 116 Ga. App. 37, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 682 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Deen, Judge.

The Board of Workmen’s Compensation, hearing a compensation case and making its own finding of fact, was authorized by evidence in the record to find that the claimant’s accident did not arise in the course of his employment. The board found that the claimant was employed by Middle-brooks Brothers, a partnership of which Hugh Middlebrooks was an employee-overseer paid on a percentage of profits basis, and not by Middlebrooks Milling Company of which Hugh Middlebrooks was part owner; that the claimant was at the time of his injury performing services personal to Hugh Middlebrooks although he was paid by the partnership for his time, and that because of these facts the injury was not compensable. Such finding is in accord with American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Lemming, 187 Ga. 378 (200 SE 141) although that case is itself contrary to the trend in many jurisdictions. See 172 ALR, Anno., p. 378.

The judgment of the superior court affirming the award denying compensation is

Affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

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

Deen, Judge.

The Board of Workmen’s Compensation, hearing a compensation case and making its own finding of fact, was authorized by evidence in the record to find that the claimant’s accident did not arise in the course of his employment. The board found that the claimant was employed by Middle-brooks Brothers, a partnership of which Hugh Middlebrooks was an employee-overseer paid on a percentage of profits basis, and not by Middlebrooks Milling Company of which Hugh Middlebrooks was part owner; that the claimant was at the time of his injury performing services personal to Hugh Middlebrooks although he was paid by the partnership for his time, and that because of these facts the injury was not compensable. Such finding is in accord with American Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. v. Lemming, 187 Ga. 378 (200 SE 141) although that case is itself contrary to the trend in many jurisdictions. See 172 ALR, Anno., p. 378.

The judgment of the superior court affirming the award denying compensation is

Affirmed.

Jordan, P. J., and Quillian, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 S.E.2d 654, 116 Ga. App. 37, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 682, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westbrook-v-hartford-accident-indemnity-co-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack