Martin v. Tubize-Chatillon Corporation
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtStephens, P. J.
(After stating the foregoing facts.) The controlling question is whether the allegations of the petition show that the plaintiff’s injuries resulted from an occupational disease or whether they resulted from an accidental injury compensable under the workmen’s compensation act. The plaintiff alleged that his employer was a manufacturer of rayon; that sulphuric acid is one of the ingredients of rayon and is used in the manufacture of rayon, and that in the kind of work performed by him for his employer he was exposed to the fumes which emanated from sulphuric acid; that his place of work was…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Covington v. Berkeley Granite Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Berkeley Granite Corp. v. CovingtonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1937
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. LynchCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
- Simmons v. Etowah Monument Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1931
- Middlebrooks v. Atlanta Metallic Casket Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1940
3Cited by10 opinions
- Miller v. Travelers Insurance Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1965
- Pershing Quicksilver Co. v. ThiersNevada Supreme Court · 1944
- Genesco, Inc. v. GreesonCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1962
- Peerless Woolen Mills v. PharrCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Thigpen v. Executive CommitteeCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1966
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.