*1 allegation by presenting support their evidence to negligence against defendant. part engineering It is uncontradicted that defendant took
plaintiffs’ constructing plaintiffs’ installing planning lot, house or septic system plaintiffs’ property. undisputed tank on It is also County Department approved that the Chatham Health Riversbend septic systems, disposal Subdivision for use of permit tank waste issued a septic system plaintiffs’ propеrty for installation of a tank approved system property. plaintiffs’ that was installed on support plaintiffs’ damages These circumstances do not were the proximate development result of defendаnt’s of Riversbend ‘(p)laintiff fail(s) simply [a] Subdivision. “Where his case (is) proper . . . the Bros., direction of a verdict Carr . . .’ v. Jacuzzi 16) App. (1974); Wagner 70, 133 Ga. Timms, App. 295) (1981); (Code OCGA Ann. 81A- 150).” Morico, Smith v. 737, 166 Ga. In the judice, plaintiffs prove any part case sub sinсe failed to fault on the of favor of directing defendant, the trial court did not err in Homes, defendant. 597 Hall v. See Richardson 593, Wilmock, Dunant Inc., Sognier, J., concurs. concurs in judgment only. Decided March Stephen appellants. Yekel, R. Phillip Gregory Hodges, Roy McCorkle, R. I. Paul, E. Walter C. Hartridge, 75838. LAVISTA EQUIPMENT SUPPLY, INC. v. ELLIOTT. Judge.
Birdsong, Chief granted interlocutory appeal We Compensation, superior Board of Workers’ and the court affirm- alleged ance, еrred in in an heart attack case of the “natu- presumption,” by holding ral ‘where an inbe formance of a natural arises that his death employment.’ Transport arose out of and in the course of his Brown Corp. specula- Jenkins, [199 910]. tive of a coroner does not reveal the cause of death with suffi- certainty presumptions in the absence medical cient an such in this case.” job, sitting Employee in his em- P. while Otis Elliott died on plоyer’s crossing. El- stated truck at a The medical examiner railroad (1) (2) insufficiency coronary myocardial failure, acute liott (3) atherosclerosis; coroner relied on this and cause of death. The boаrd statement *2 only, opinion this autopsy. had, fewa since there was There was evidence Elliott pain days episode death, his suffered an of severe chest before performed family physician home; he sur- and his testified thoracic gery in He death could on Elliott 1972. also testified Elliott’s the causes other than heart and that have been work result of his death. activities not sufficient to cause were appeal, оf medical ex- contends the (and coroner) myocardial failure, acute aminer Elliott died of coronary insufficiency atherosclerosis, Elliott’s med- was based on information, cause of reveal a dеfinitive ical death, opinion other and did finding without an the the to the board’s says employer, merely speculative. Therefore, unexplained, in- not so natural death was there never arose the employee employment-related ference that a is “when an the is place performance in a he in of his found dead where should be duties.” grandson, died,
Elliott’s who was with him in the truck when extremely driving truck. said Elliott had had an time this difficult any disputed any i.e., contradiction, is This driving positively dence he The board found Elliott’s not have time the truck. did a difficult occupation was “of a strenuous nature.” supported is evidence. employee It is true ‘when perform- be presumed em- ance of his out of his it is that the death arose ” ployment.’ applies only But inference the death cases where literally is, is is “found dead” that where Zamora v. and the cause of death is not known. See (290 In such the difficul- Ga. a case ties of Wherever cause of death necessitate inference. attack) (e.g., strangulation, shooting, known, is ex- gen- heart the death plained; question is then whether the death was work-related erally presump- capable proof, objective is no for a and there need employment is, That claimant is tion that was caused duties. rely upon out of not entitled to that the death arose probative proof employment the deceased’s must submit comply requirements so with issue of the causal connection as to (4). p. in OCGA 34-9-1 Id. 85. heart-related, death is found to
expressly gоverned by specific in OCGA 34-9- provides: ‘personal injury’ ‘injury’ which include “nor shall any disease, attack, failure occlusion of of the coro- or nary preponder- vessels, blood it is shown or thrombosis unless was] [it ance credible evidence attributable performance employment.” H. of the usual work of See G. & 868); Logging Burch, Brown Trans- port Corp. Blanchard, author has contended on occasion difficulties of of this code section
notwithstanding, specific provisions the clear and controlling preclude cases, to heart attack evidence” of in inference that the heart attack arose of at out employmеnt. Zippy Fender, the course of Mart v. 575) (dissent, Birdsong); 620, 624 Co. J. Guye, 549) (concurrence judgment in only, Birdsong) p. J. But, Indem. in v. Home Cato, Ga. 213 897 explained Southwire Co. v. Court held that when there arises a natural inference the death engagеd if work-related evidence shows the work *3 sufficiently strenuous or of such a nature com- bined with the other facts the case to raise a infer- of such natural through experience ence the human that the exеrtion contributed toward precipitation Surety Corp., of v. Nat. the attack. Hoffman This is not the same inference that arises unexplained. when a death disap- Court has also held this inference does not (Southwire
pear upon presentation Co., of medical supra p. 898); satisfy statutory requirement but, itself, it can “preponderance competent of of evidence” where there creditable contrary. is nо medical evidence to the
supra. upon case,
In this concluded, the medical examiner based Elliott, medical information and of a expert However, attack. another medical testified that the conclusion speсulative, Elliott suffered heart attack and the death could have causes; resulted from other thus the in the board’s conclusion that supported by absence of an the death is correctly appropri- dеnce. board therefore the inference followed unexplained although gratu- Thus, ate to itously deaths. the board somewhat strenuous,
found that Elliott’s work was the board explained nevertheless declined heаrt attack. to find cause of death was (OCGA explained death is 34- statute (4)) requires specific high what is next to 9-1 of of impossible have allowed courts by supposition, preponderance “a reached оbviously requires. expressly evidence,” statute credible troubles the board, the state of the statute as well it should. Under permitted legislature has law as it it is been to exist ingenious statute, of the to deal with the solution
cоnceived avoiding board, in a heart attack the troublesome issue upon arising relying from unex- the inference situation instead plained case, death cannot be faulted. Banke, J.,P. concur. Rehearing. Sup- Equipment employer
On motion for Lavista ply, perhaps properly misled cases our comment that (OCGA (4)), governed by statute, and not should an appar- presumption work-relatedness, we
inference or contends ently thought here found Elliott’s death to board However, caused heart attack. for the makes clear board, do, as it was authorized to heart at- case, tack as too plained, in this death to be unеx- giving presumption thus rise to rehearing is What the contends on motion for unexplained- demonstrating evidence the cause death makes the disappear. Employer death bases Hodges, language p. in Southern Bell assertion say However, Southern Bell did not shooting) any (e.g., this. known It said that where cause of death is enabling analysis work-re- whether the death was evidence destroys lated, it arose the course of work. holding Thus is in Zamora v. although the cause of explained (strangulation) known and of work-relat- edness still arose did not affirma- because evidence to tively employment. establish the did not occur course *4 in Zamora еvidence of work-relatedness. evidence looked for was “any destroy The presumption Southern Bell evidence” we looked for in to being cause; cause es- evidence” as to tablished, analysis еnable an what we for was evidence that would looked (known) cause work- question. is the related. This ultimate employer’s point appellee The confusion arises (and board’s) goes of heart attack to statements that the evidence destroy in the course rebut or arose cause, employment. The evidence of heart attack is evidence cause, to again once it it cannot be used hаs been rejected. It has been success- employer’s “any evidence” of heart attack contention that fully only has not never rebuts the court, logic. sanctioned but it has no basis is denied. for February Decidеd Sommers, Chase,
Susan V. Sandra appellant. G. for Horne, Jr., Clarence R. THE WILLIAMSON v. STATE. Presiding Judge.
McMurray, Defendant was indicted for the rape offenses of and two counts of aggravated sodomy. The jury rape returned a guilty guilty of two simple battery. counts of appeals. Defendant
1. The State’s evidence got shows that the victim off work at 1:00 p.m. and traveled on the “MARTA” train to the downtown Five Points Station. During the course journey of this the victim met individual whо Tony introduced Tony himself as Johns. Johns suaded the victim accompany him apartment to an near the “West Lake MARTA” apartment station. At the the defendant answered the door and the three sat dining Thereafter, down at the room table. Tony Johns stated to the victim that he wanted to discuss something with her privately in the apartment. back of the The victim volunta- rily accompanied Tony Johns to a bedroom. When the victim at- temрted to Tony leave pushed Johns her Tony down on the bed. Johns called the defendant into the bedroom and told defendant look through purse the victim’s jacket weapons, and to take any money that she Tony had. Johns then told defendant go get them something to drink. While defendant was gone Tony Johns for- cibly removed pants, the victim’s threatened her with a knife and had her remove the Johns, remainder of Subsequently, Tony her clothes. defеndant and two other males had various sexual contacts with the victim.
Defendant’s first enumeration sufficiency of error raises the rape. rape. Henning Force is an essential element of State, argues Defendant that there