Legal Opinion
Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sprayberry
Supreme Court of Georgia
Decided February 9, 1943No. 14417PublishedCited by 17 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Grice, Justice.
The answer to the questions propounded calls for a decision as to what was meant by the use of the word “accident” in that part of our workmen’s compensation act relating to hernia, now codified as section 114-412 of the Code.
The word occurs several times in the act. Indeed the entire legislation now comprising title 114 of the Code is built around “injury by accident.” In Covington v. Berkeley Granite Corporation, 182 Ga. 235, 237 (184 S. E. 871), after quoting the caption of the original act, and the language of certain of its sections, it was observed that “It is apparent…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Lumbermen's Mutual Casualty Co. v. GriggsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1940
- Central Surety & Insurance v. Industrial CommissionSupreme Court of Colorado · 1928
- Giguere v. E. B. & A. C. Whiting Co.Supreme Court of Vermont · 1935
- Covington v. Berkeley Granite Corp.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1936
- Horn v. Planters Products Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1930
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by17 opinions
- Southern Wire & Iron, Inc. v. FowlerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Purity Biscuit Co. v. Industrial CommissionUtah Supreme Court · 1949
- Thomas v. United States Casualty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1962
- Echols v. Chattooga Mercantile CompanyCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1946
- Liberty Mutual Insurance v. BlackshearSupreme Court of Georgia · 1944
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.