Legal Opinion

Baynes v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Decided January 21, 1960No. 38090PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Gardner, Presiding Judge.

Counsel for the employer and insurance carrier argue that the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act must be construed reasonably and liberally with a view of applying the beneficent provisions of the statute so as to effectuate its purpose. This is a correct principle of law generally, but of course the appellate courts have some leeway in deciding how to apply the rule. It is also true, as contended, that in order to recover for an injury under the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, it must appear that the injury arose out of, and in the course of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Maryland Casualty Co. v. SandersSupreme Court of Georgia · 1936
  2. Merry Bros. Brick & Tile Co. v. HolmesCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
  3. Fralish v. Royal Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1936
  4. Peninsular Life Insurance v. BrandCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
  5. American Mutual Liability Insurance v. JenkinsCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940

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

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. SnyderCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1972
  2. Liberty Mutual Insurance v. ArcherCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  3. Davidson v. Fidelity & Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1963
  4. Employers Fire Insurance v. WalravenCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1973
  5. Hayes v. Highlands InsuranceCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1970

2 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