Legal Opinion

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Souther

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided June 30, 1964No. 40703PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Pannell, Judge.

1. “There is no requirement in our [Workmen’s Compensation] law that the employee at the time of the injury must have no objective other than the service of the employer.” Travelers Ins. Co. v. Bailey, 76 Ga. App. 698 (2) (47 SE2d 103); U.S. Fidelity &c. Co. v. Croft, 93 Ga. App. 114 (3) (91 SE2d 110). If an employee, while engaged in the business of his master, makes a slight deviation for ends of his own, the master remains liable when the act was so closely connected with the master’s affairs, that though the employee may derive some benefit from it, it may nevertheless be…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Shoffler v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1927
  2. Smith v. University of IdahoIdaho Supreme Court · 1946
  3. Pike v. Maryland Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
  4. Mitchell v. Mitchell Drilling Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1941
  5. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. CroftCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1955

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Stokes v. Coweta County Board of EducationCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 2012
  2. Parker v. Travelers InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1977
  3. Olde South Custom Landscaping, Inc. v. MathisCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1997
  4. South Georgia Timber Co. v. PettyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1995
  5. Lee v. F. M. Henderson & AssociatesCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1973

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API