121 Ga. App. 128 | Ga. Ct. App. | 1970
Lead Opinion
1. (a) “An injury arises 'in the course of employment/ within the meaning of the workmen’s compensation act, when it occurs within the period of the employment, at a place where the employee reasonably may be in the performance of his duties, and while he is fulfilling those duties or engaged in doing something incidental thereto.” New Amsterdam Cas. Co. v. Sumrell, 30 Ga. App. 682 (118 SE 786).
-(b) “An accident arises 'out of’ the employment when it arises because of it, as when the employment is a contributing proximate cause. This and the condition stated above- must concur before the act can apply.” Id. Hn. 2 (a).
-(c) “If the work of an employee or the performance of an incidental duty involves an exposure to the perils” of handling a firearm, “the protection of the compensation act extends to the employee while he is” handling the firearm “in the performance of his duties.” Id. Hn. 2 (b).
2. Where, as in the present case, .a compensation claimant is employed as a deputy clerk in a recorder’s court, and his duties consist, among other things, of taking guns to or from court as required in a particular case being heard, and he was on duty in an early morning hour, and a police officer came in and exhibited to the clerk a small .22 caliber derringer pistol, and the clerk undertook to examine the weapon, cocked the firing mechanism and attempted to unbreach the weapon, and it accidently fired, injuring the clerk’s left hand, such injury did not arise out of the employment, for the reason that the examination of and the cocking of the firearm by the employee claimant out of which the injury arose was not incidental to any of the duties of the employee, nor did such cocking of the firearm constitute a causal connection between the conditions under which the employment was performed and the resulting injury, such as might have been the case if a police officer or other person on the premises
Judgment affirmed.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting. I dissent from the judgment of affirmance because of the rulings in U. S. Fidel. &c. Co. v. Phillips, 97 Ga. App. 729 (104 SE2d 542), and Fidelity & Cas. Co.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring specially. I am dubious of the use of positive statements in the opinion to the effect that the injury did not arise out of the employment and that there was no causal connection between the conditions of employment and the resulting injury. There was ample evidence from which the full board could have concluded, as did the single director, that the injury arose out of and in the course of claimant’s employment. I concur in the judgment for the sole reason that if there is “any evidence” to support the award, the appellate court must affirm.
I am authorized to state that Judge Deen concurs in this view.