Legal Opinion
Armour & Co. v. Little
Court of Appeals of Georgia
Decided April 25, 1951No. 33483PublishedCited by 12 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtTownsend, J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The applicable part of Code § 114-105 is as follows: “No compensation shall be allowed for an injury or death due to the employee’s wilful misconduct, including . . wilful failure or, refusal to use a safety appliance. . . The burden of proof shall be upon him who claims an exemption or forfeiture under this section.” In consequence, the burden of proving that Little’s failure to use the metal rake to disengage the meat from the machine was a wilful failure and refusal to use a safety appliance is upon the employer. Shiplett v. Moran, 58 Ga. App. 854 (2)…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Ætna Life Insurance v. CarrollSupreme Court of Georgia · 1929
- Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Austin v. General Accident, Fire, & Life Assurance Corp.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1937
- Glens Falls Indemnity Co. v. SockwellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Hall v. KendallCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1950
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Brewer v. POWERS TRUCKING COMPANYSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1962
- Pacific Indemnity Insurance v. EberhardtCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
- Barry v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1974
- Georgia Department of Public Safety v. CollinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
- Coulter v. Royal Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1957
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.