Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Zachery

5 Citing cases

  1. Hughes v. Hartford Accident c. Co.

    47 S.E.2d 143 (Ga. Ct. App. 1948)   Cited 16 times

    The causative danger must be peculiar to the work. . . It must be incidental to the character of the business, and not independent of the relation of master and servant." Hartford Accident Indemnity Co. v. Zachery, 69 Ga. App. 250 (1) ( 25 S.E.2d 135); New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682, 688 ( 118 S.E. 786); Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. v. Neal, 55 Ga. App. 790, 800 ( 191 S.E. 393). The Director of the Board of Workmen's Compensation found from the evidence that the claimant's injuries did not result from an accident arising out of his employment, for the reason that the employment was not a contributing proximate cause of the shooting that caused such injuries.

  2. Simmons v. Solo Cup Operating Corp.

    907 S.E.2d 377 (Ga. Ct. App. 2024)

    See generally The Holy Bible, Luke 10:29-37.See Lindsey v. Winn Dixie Stores, Inc., 186 Ga. App. 867, 868 (1), 368 S.E.2d 813 (1988) (holding that employer was not entitled to summary judgment when evidence showed that employee’s altercation with coworker was the result of name calling and not related to employee’s job duties); Walsh Const. Co. v. Hamilton, 185 Ga. App. 105, 105-06, 363 S.E.2d 301 (1987) (holding that WCA did not apply when worker was attacked by coworker who objected to worker begging for food); Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Zacherv, 69 Ga. App. 250, 251 (3), 25 S.E.2d 135 (1943) (holding that WCA did not apply when claimant was attacked by a coworker because coworker was "provoked by the repeated accusations of the claimant that he was a talebearer, and not because the claimant was late for work or because of anything being done by him incidental to his employment"). Cf. Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876, 879-81 (1) (b), (c), 354 S.E.2d 204 (1987) (holding that assault arose out of instructor's employment when it resulted from earlier confrontation over student’s test results).

  3. Graves v. Builders Steel Supply

    368 S.E.2d 188 (Ga. Ct. App. 1988)   Cited 6 times
    In Graves, this court noted that it liberally construes the Workers' Compensation Act to effectuate its humanitarian purposes.

    The requirement that the injury "arise out of the employment" is fulfilled "when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work, and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises `out of' the employment." Hartford Accident c. Co. v. Zachery, 69 Ga. App. 250 (1) ( 25 S.E.2d 135) (1943). "The accident must be one resulting from a risk reasonably incident to the employment.

  4. Murphy v. Ara Services, Inc.

    164 Ga. App. 859 (Ga. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 46 times
    Holding that the WCA did not bar tort claims based on a pattern of sexual harassment

    The causative danger must be peculiar to the work... It must be incidental to the character of the business, and not independent of the relation of master and servant.'" Hartford Accident c. Co. v. Zachery, 69 Ga. App. 250 (1) ( 25 S.E.2d 135) (1943). "The accident must be one resulting from a risk reasonably incident to the employment.

  5. Commercial Constr. Co. v. Caldwell

    140 S.E.2d 298 (Ga. Ct. App. 1965)   Cited 7 times

    " New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682 (2a) ( 118 S.E. 786). "And the burden is on the claimant to prove that the injury for which compensation is sought arose out of and in the course of the employment, before compensation can be legally awarded to the claimant." Hughes v. Hartford Acc. c. Co., 76 Ga. App. 785, 789 ( 47 S.E.2d 143). As was said in Hartford Acc. Ind. Co. v. Zachery, 69 Ga. App. 250 (1) ( 25 S.E.2d 135): "Under the Workmen's Compensation Act an injury `"arises out of" the employment, when there is apparent to the rational mind, upon consideration of all the circumstances, a causal connection between the conditions under which the work is required to be performed and the resulting injury. Under this test, if the injury can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work, and to have been contemplated by a reasonable person familiar with the whole situation as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment, then it arises "out of" the employment. But it excludes an injury which can not fairly be traced to the employment as a contributing proximate cause, and which comes from a hazard to which the workmen would have been equally exposed apart from the employment.