FRETT v. STATE FARM EMPLOYEE WORKERS' COMPENSATION, 309 Ga. 44

Background

Rochelle Frett, a State Farm claims associate, slipped on water and was injured while exiting the employer’s breakroom during her scheduled, unpaid 45‑minute lunch break; she was on the employer’s premises and preparing to eat lunch.
Frett was free to leave and not required to work during the break; State Farm did not own the surrounding outdoor areas.
Administrative Law Judge initially awarded benefits; the Board’s appellate division reversed, finding the injury arose out of a purely personal matter.
Superior court affirmed; the Court of Appeals affirmed relying on Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Farr (1935), which treated scheduled‑break injuries as not arising out of employment.
Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari, concluded Frett’s injury both occurred "in the course of" and "arose out of" her employment, overruled Farr, reversed the Court of Appeals, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Frett’s injury "in the course of" employment?	Preparing/eating lunch in employer breakroom during the workday is a personal‑comfort activity incidental to employment and occurred on employer premises during work hours.	Lunch was unpaid, free time; employee had been released from duties and thus was outside the course of employment.	Yes. Court: on premises, mid‑workday, and preparing to eat is incidental to employment — injury occurred in the course of employment.
Did the injury "arise out of" employment (causation)?	Slip on a wet breakroom floor was causally connected to the working conditions (employer premises) and thus a risk of employment.	Under Farr, an injury during a scheduled break is a personal pursuit and does not "arise out of" employment.	Yes. Court: causal connection exists because the hazard (wet floor) was linked to the employment environment; injury arose out of employment.
Should Farr control or be overruled?	Farr misapplied the statutory two‑prong test by conflating "in the course of" and "arising out of," and is unsound and unworkable.	Farr is longstanding precedent and has guided decisions for decades.	Overruled. Court: Farr’s reasoning is unsound, inconsistent with the established causation analysis, and produced incoherent results.
Does stare decisis counsel retention of Farr?	Reliance and workability weigh in favor of overruling given inconsistent application and limited reliance.	Farr’s age (85 years) and historical use counsel against overruling; legislature could correct errors.	Court: after balancing factors (soundness, workability, age, reliance), overruling is appropriate.

Key Cases Cited

Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v. Farr, 180 Ga. 266 (1935) (original scheduled‑break rule treating injuries during employer‑scheduled breaks as not arising out of employment; overruled)
Frett v. State Farm Employee Workers’ Comp., 348 Ga. App. 30 (2018) (Court of Appeals decision affirming denial of benefits under Farr)
Thornton v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 198 Ga. 786 (1945) (meal and other personal‑comfort activities can be incidental to employment, especially for traveling employees)
Hennly v. Richardson, 264 Ga. 355 (1994) (defining "in the course of" as time, place, and circumstances of injury)
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co. v. Skinner, 188 Ga. 823 (1939) (distinguishing continuous employment/traveling employee and emphasizing course‑of‑employment analysis)
SCI Liquidating Corp. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 293 (2000) ("arising out of" requires a risk of employment a reasonable person could foresee)
Fried v. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 192 Ga. 492 (1941) (discussing causation and the "arising out of" requirement)
Ray Bell Constr. Co. v. King, 281 Ga. 853 (2007) (recognizing broader coverage for employees required to be on site; liberal construction of Act)
Federal Ins. Co. v. Coram, 95 Ga. App. 622 (1957) (ingress/egress and incidental activities tied to employer premises can be compensable)