30 Ga. App. 730 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1923
1. The right of a beneficiary of a deceased employee to compensation under the Georgia workmen’s compensation act and the right of such beneficiary to recover against another for a tortious homicide -of the employee being secured to the beneficiary by independent statutes, and a payment by one not being a payment of the obligation of the other, and the latter having no equity which would authorize him to be subrogated to the rights of the beneficiary in any part of the fund collected, and these rights not being conflicting or necessarily inconsistent, they were, in the absence of any statutory provision to the contrary in the workmen’s compensation act or elsewhere, prior to the amendment to this act approved August 16, 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 185, § 2 d), both available to the beneficiary; and furthermore, the employer and the one responsible for the homicide not being joint tortfeasors, a settlement with the beneficiary of the latter’s claim for damages for the homicide does not inure to the benefit of the employer, and in a suit by the beneficiary against the employer, to which the insurer of the employer is a party, can not be pleaded by either the employer or the insurer in bar of compensation. See, in this connection, City of Austin v. Johnson, (Tex. Civ. App.) 204 S. W. 1181; Ohio Traction Co. v. Washington, 6 Ohio App. 273.
2. One who is employed to drive an ice-wagon and deliver ice to various points in a city, off: the premises of the employer, and who in the discharge of such duties must travel along a certain route which crosses
2. The employee having been accidentally killed, by an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and the accident having occurred prior to the amendment to the Georgia workmen’s compensation act of 1922 (Ga. L. 1922, p. 185, § 2 d), the beneficiary was, under the above rulings, entitled to compensation, and the superior court did not err in sustaining the award of the Industrial Commission.
<Judgment affirmed.