ROY v. NORMAN., 261 Ga. 303, 404 S.E.2.d 117 (1991)
Linked as:
Summary
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia., Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Summary
Certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Georgia., Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur.
Text
R. Glen Galbaugh, for appellant.
We granted a petition for Writ of Certiorari in this Workers' Compensation case to answer the question: "Whether the employee's conduct constituted wilful misconduct within the meaning of OCGA
At the time of the incident in question, Mr. Roy operated a retail tire business where Mr. Norman was an assistant manager. On the day of Mr. Norman's injury, he was supervising the loading of used tires into a trailer. The workers loading the tires complained of mosquitos and they asked Mr. Norman to light a fire to drive the mosquitos away. Mr. Norman proceeded to dispense gasoline from an on-site pump into a hard cup about the size of a coffee cup, and then to light a fire using the gasoline and some debris. He left the fire to pump gasoline into a customer's car and to give the receipts from that sale to the cashier. Mr. Norman then returned to the fire, which had died down. He stood at the fire holding a stick in one hand and the cup, half-filled with gasoline, in the other. As he stirred the fire with the stick, it flared and he was burned.
Mr. Roy sought to avoid liability by invoking OCGA
1. (a) The general rule is that mere violations of instructions, orders, rules, ordinances, and statutes, and the doing of hazardous acts where the danger is obvious, do not, without more, as a matter of law, constitute wilful misconduct.
(b) Such violations or failures or refusals generally constitute mere negligence, and such negligence, however great, does not constitute wilful misconduct or wilful failure or refusal to perform a duty required by statute, and will not defeat recovery of compensation by the employee or his dependents.
(c) Wilful misconduct, or wilful failure or refusal to perform a duty required by statute, is more than negligence or even gross negligence; it involves conduct of a criminal or quasi-criminal nature, the intentional doing of something, either with the knowledge that it is likely to result in serious injury, or with the wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences.
(d) Wilful misconduct includes all conscious or intentional violations of definite law or rules of conduct, as distinguished from inadvertent, unconscious, or involuntary violations.
2. (a) Whether the employee was guilty of wilful misconduct, or was guilty of wilful failure or refusal to perform a duty imposed on him by statute, [are] questions of fact for the [Board of Workers' Compensation], and the findings of the [Board] upon these questions are final, and will not be disturbed where there is evidence to support them. (Emphases supplied.) The Administrative Law Judge made a specific finding that Mr. Norman, "did not willfully set himself on fire . . . [and] [t]he result was involuntary, unintentional and negligent." The State Board of Workers' Compensation adopted those findings of fact. " 'A finding of fact by an administrative law judge or the State Board of Workmen's Compensation, when supported by any evidence, is conclusive and binding Bloodworth v. Continental Ins. Co.,
Winston P. Bethel, for appellee.
1991
Notes:
1. See also Terry v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.,
Sponsored links
