Smith v. Ellis, 291 Ga. 566

Employee Smith settled with his employer under OCGA § 34-9-15(b) (no-liability settlement) approved by the Board, finalizing all claims for the incident.
Smith then sued Ellis (co-worker) for negligence; Ellis moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusive remedy provision barred the tort action.
Court of Appeals split; this Court resolves that Ridley v. Monroe (2002) correctly decided that a Board-approved settlement under § 34-9-15(b) bars a later tort claim against co-employees if they are within the same employer.
Question presented: whether Ellis was acting as “an employee of the same employer” at the time of injury or as a “third-party tort-feasor,” affecting applicability of § 34-9-11(a).
Record shows genuine dispute about Ellis’s employment-status at the time of the injury; the trial court erred in granting Ellis summary judgment.
Case remanded for proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ridley should be overruled.	Smith argues Ridley is illogical and should be overruled.	Ellis (and the Court) maintain Ridley correctly applied the statute.	Ridley correctly decided.
Whether Ellis was acting as a co-employee or a third-party tort-feasor when injuring Smith.	Smith contends Ellis was not acting as a co-employee.	Ellis contends status as co-employee is possible; need evidence.	Genuine dispute exists; summary judgment reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Ridley v. Monroe, 256 Ga. App. 686 (2002) (exclusive remedy bars employee’s later tort claim against same-employer co-workers when settlement approved)
Haygood v. Home Transp. Co., 244 Ga. 165 (1979) (settlement benefits preclude subsequent tort action against employer)
Thorn v. Phillips, 164 Ga. App. 47 (1982) (no-liability settlements bar later actions against fellow employees)
Crawford v. Meyer, 195 Ga. App. 867 (1990) (whether co-employee still acting in course of employment governs preclusion)
Stevenson v. Ray, 282 Ga. App. 652 (2006) (on-duty/on-call status governs course-of-employment analysis)
Clark v. Williamson, 206 Ga. App. 329 (1992) (both parties acting within scope of employment typically bars tort action)
Sargent v. Blankmann, 202 Ga. App. 156 (1991) (scope-of-employment analysis controls exclusive remedy)
Heard v. Mitchell's Formal Wear, 249 Ga. App. 492 (2001) (intentional torts by co-employees may be excluded from coverage)
Right v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 141 Ga. App. 409 (1977) (injury caused by willful act by third person excluded from coverage)
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Davis, 253 Ga. 376 (1984) (Board approval constitutes award for purposes of preclusion)