Thornton v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co.

Thornton v. Hartford Acci. & Indem. Co.

Opinion

 [*787]   [**817]  The only question presented is, whether the accidential injury sustained by the employee arose "out of and in the course of" his employment within the meaning of the Code, § 114-102. ] "An accident arises 'in the course of employment,' within the meaning of the workmen's compensation act, when it occurs within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties, and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto. . . An accident arises [***4]  'out of' the employment when it arises because of it, as when the employment is a contributing proximate cause. This and the conditions stated above must concur before the act can apply." New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682 (118 S. E. 786); Employers  [*788]  Liability Assurance Corp. v. Montgomery, 45 Ga. App. 634 (165 S. E. 903); Liberty Mutual Insurance Co. v. Mangham, 56 Ga. App. 498 (193 S. E. 87). The words "in the course of" refer to the time, place, and circumstances under which the accident occurs. The employee in the instant case, at the time of the injury, was returning to a hotel (where  [**818]  he had previously registered) from a meal at a cafe almost directly across the street from the hotel; and he was doing something which a man employed as a traveling salesman may reasonably do within the time he is employed and at a place where he might reasonably be during that time. The fact that he had left the hotel and gone across the street for a meal would not necessarily preclude the relationship of employer and employee, nor take him outside the scope of his employment.

In Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v.  [***5]  Pruitt, 63 Ga. App. 149, 151 (10 S. E. 2d, 275), where a traveling salesman was injured by falling from a stool in a cafe where he had gone to eat a meal and procure information about a prospect, the court said: ] "The scope of employment of a traveling man is wider than that of an ordinary employee. New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682, 691 (118 S. E. 786). 'It can not be said that the employment is broken by mere intervals of leisure such as those taken for a meal. If an accident happened at such a time, there would be no break in the employment . . unless the workman is doing something wholly foreign to his employment.  Acts of ministration by a servant to himself, such as quenching his thirst, relieving his hunger . . are incidents to his employment and acts of service therein within the workmen's compensation acts though they are only indirectly conducive to the purpose of the employment.  Consequently no break in the employment is caused by the mere fact that the workman is ministering to his personal comforts or necessities . . to procure drink, refreshments, food.' 1 Honnold's Workmen's Compensation, 379-384; § 111. In Railway Express Agency [***6]  v. Shuttleworth, 61 Ga. App. 644 (7 S. E. 2d, 195), the claimant's husband was employed by the defendant company as its special agent who traveled about to investigate loss and damages to shipments handled by the company. He came to Atlanta, Georgia, from Nashville, Tennessee, to make such an investigation and to consult with the  [*789]  defendant's attorneys. It was necessary that he spend a night in Atlanta, and unfortunately he chose the Terminal Hotel. The company always paid his expenses on such trips, including hotel lodging. The hotel burned in the early morning of the next day, and he lost his life. In affirming the ruling of the superior court affirming the award of the Industrial Board, holding that the death arose out of and in the course of his employment and allowing compensation, this court said: ] 'A traveling salesman, by reason of his employment, incurs the risk necessary and incident to the requirements of such employment. . . If the work of a traveling salesman or representative of an employer exposes him to the hazards of the highway, we can not see why he is not exposed to the same degree and in the same manner to the hazards of hotels and eating places,  [***7]  provided they are normal and necessary incidents to his employment. If an employee is required by the duties of his employment to be away from his home at night, and his compensation covers the expense necessary and incident to spending the night away from home, and he incurs dangers or perils arising from and incident to such staying at a hotel the protection of the compensation act extends to such employee while so engaged in the service of his employer.'"

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.