Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Neal
Court of Appeals of Georgia
1Opinion of the CourtSutton, J.
It is contended by the plaintifE in error that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a finding that at the time of his injury the claimant was working for the Gainesville Cotton Mills. It is undisputed that he was injured at the time and in the manner claimed, but it is argued that such an injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with the de*796fendant mill, and that on the contrary his injury was sustained while he was working for one who happened to be the outside overseer of the mill. Of course, “the fact that an employee is the general servant of one employer…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited10 opinions
- New Amsterdam Casualty Co. v. SumrellCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1923
- Moore v. Dublin Cotton MillsSupreme Court of Georgia · 1907
- Greenberg & Bond Co. v. YarbroughCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1921
- Keen v. New Amsterdam Casualty Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1925
- Employers Liability Assurance Corp. v. MontgomeryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1932
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- Travelers Insurance v. ClarkCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1938
- Fried v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co.Supreme Court of Georgia · 1941
- Hughes v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Court of Appeals of Georgia · 1948
- Keene v. InsleyCourt of Special Appeals of Maryland · 1975
- Hardware Mutual Casualty Co. v. SprayberryCourt of Appeals of Georgia · 1943
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.