positional risk doctrine in Georgia

2016Co. v. Edwards, 152 Ga. App. 566, 567 (1) ( 263 SE2d 455 ) (1979) (whole court). 9 269 Ga. App. at 339 . 7 Where the injury would have occurred regardless of where the employee was required to be located, and results from a risk to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from any condition of the employment, there is no basis for finding a causal connection between the employment and the injury, and no basis for compensation under the positional risk doctrine.

2016As stated above, “an injury arises out of the employment under the positional risk doctrine if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where 14 (Emphasis supplied.) Chaparral Boats, Inc., 269 Ga. App. at 342 (1). 15 Peterson v. Rtm Mid-America, 209 Ga. App. 691, 693 (2) ( 434 SE2d 521 ) (1993) (noting Michigan adoption of positional risk doctrine and applying same for purposes of Michigan WCA statute). 9 he was injured.”16 Accordingly, under the specific facts of this case, we conclude that the trial cour

2016Co. v. Edwards, 152 Ga. App. 566, 567 (1) ( 263 SE2d 455 ) (1979) (whole court). 9 269 Ga. App. at 339 . 7 Where the injury would have occurred regardless of where the employee was required to be located, and results from a risk to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from any condition of the employment, there is no basis for finding a causal connection between the employment and the injury, and no basis for compensation under the positional risk doctrine.

2016Co. v. Edwards, 152 Ga. App. 566, 567 (1) ( 263 SE2d 455 ) (1979) (whole court). 9 269 Ga. App. at 339 . 7 Where the injury would have occurred regardless of where the employee was required to be located, and results from a risk to which the employee would have been equally exposed apart from any condition of the employment, there is no basis for finding a causal connection between the employment and the injury, and no basis for compensation under the positional risk doctrine.

2024Cf. Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876, 879-81 (1) (b), (c) ( 354 SE2d 204 ) (1987) (holding that assault arose out of instructor’s employment when it resulted from earlier confrontation over student’s test results). 14 Even so, Solo contends the positional-risk doctrine applies in this case.

2024Cf. Swanson v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp., 181 Ga. App. 876, 879-81 (1) (b), (c) ( 354 SE2d 204 ) (1987) (holding that assault arose out of instructor’s employment when it resulted from earlier confrontation over student’s test results). 14 Even so, Solo contends the positional-risk doctrine applies in this case.

2018See Chaparral Boats, Inc. , 269 Ga. App. at 341 -43 , 606 S.E.2d 567 . 10 Sturgess v. OA Logistics Servs., Inc. , 336 Ga. App. 134 , 138 n. 11, 784 S.E.2d 432 (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2018See Chaparral Boats, Inc. , 269 Ga. App. at 341 -43 , 606 S.E.2d 567 . 10 Sturgess v. OA Logistics Servs., Inc. , 336 Ga. App. 134 , 138 n. 11, 784 S.E.2d 432 (2016) (citation and punctuation omitted).

2018Joseph's Hospital , this Court opined that a nurse's knee injury that she sustained while turning to get a patient some water was not compensable because "standing and turning" were not risks unique to her employment. 300 Ga. App. at 846, 848 (1), 686 S.E.2d 443 . 9 For example, with respect to the positional risk doctrine, an injury may arise out of employment if a duty related to the employment placed the employee in a locale which exposed the employee to a common risk.

2018Joseph's Hospital , this Court opined that a nurse's knee injury that she sustained while turning to get a patient some water was not compensable because "standing and turning" were not risks unique to her employment. 300 Ga. App. at 846, 848 (1), 686 S.E.2d 443 . 9 For example, with respect to the positional risk doctrine, an injury may arise out of employment if a duty related to the employment placed the employee in a locale which exposed the employee to a common risk.

2016That doctrine holds that an accidental injury arises out of the employment when the employee proves that his work brought him within range of the danger by requiring his presence in the locale when the peril struck, even though any other person present would have also been injured irrespective of his employment.8 7 (Footnote and punctuation omitted.) Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 Ga. App. 604, 607 (2) ( 751 SE2d 426 ) (2013). 8 (Punctuation omitted, emphasis supplied.) Chaparral Boats, Inc. v. Heath, 269 Ga. App. 339, 341 (1) ( 606 SE2d 567 ) (2004) (whole court), quoting Nat.

2016That doctrine holds that an accidental injury arises out of the employment when the employee proves that his work brought him within range of the danger by requiring his presence in the locale when the peril struck, even though any other person present would have also been injured irrespective of his employment.8 7 (Footnote and punctuation omitted.) Dawson v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 324 Ga. App. 604, 607 (2) ( 751 SE2d 426 ) (2013). 8 (Punctuation omitted, emphasis supplied.) Chaparral Boats, Inc. v. Heath, 269 Ga. App. 339, 341 (1) ( 606 SE2d 567 ) (2004) (whole court), quoting Nat.

2016As stated above, “an injury arises out of the employment under the positional risk doctrine if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where 14 (Emphasis supplied.) Chaparral Boats, Inc., 269 Ga. App. at 342 (1). 15 Peterson v. Rtm Mid-America, 209 Ga. App. 691, 693 (2) ( 434 SE2d 521 ) (1993) (noting Michigan adoption of positional risk doctrine and applying same for purposes of Michigan WCA statute). 9 he was injured.”16 Accordingly, under the specific facts of this case, we conclude that the trial cour

2016As stated above, “an injury arises out of the employment under the positional risk doctrine if it would not have occurred but for the fact that the conditions and obligations of the employment placed claimant in the position where 14 (Emphasis supplied.) Chaparral Boats, Inc., 269 Ga. App. at 342 (1). 15 Peterson v. Rtm Mid-America, 209 Ga. App. 691, 693 (2) ( 434 SE2d 521 ) (1993) (noting Michigan adoption of positional risk doctrine and applying same for purposes of Michigan WCA statute). 9 he was injured.”16 Accordingly, under the specific facts of this case, we conclude that the trial cour

2016The general rule still applies that the injury does not arise out of the employment where the causative danger is not “peculiar to the work” in a way that causally connects the employment to the injury.10 For example, when an injury occurs in the workplace but is idiopathic,11 such as a sudden knee failure that could have happened at any time and place,12 then the injury is not a work-related injury within the scope of the WCA.13 But it remains true that 10 (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 342-343 (1). 11 Idiopathic injuries are “peculiar to the individual” or ari

2016The general rule still applies that the injury does not arise out of the employment where the causative danger is not “peculiar to the work” in a way that causally connects the employment to the injury.10 For example, when an injury occurs in the workplace but is idiopathic,11 such as a sudden knee failure that could have happened at any time and place,12 then the injury is not a work-related injury within the scope of the WCA.13 But it remains true that 10 (Citations and punctuation omitted; emphasis supplied.) Id. at 342-343 (1). 11 Idiopathic injuries are “peculiar to the individual” or ari

2012Hiers, Jr. et al., Ga. Workers’ Compensation Law & Practice, § 5-3 (5th ed.) (Georgia cases largely merge three analytical approaches to the “arising out of” the course of the employment requirement: the increased-risk, the actual-risk, and the positional-risk doctrines). 5 See also Olde South Custom Landscaping v. Mathis, 229 Ga. App. 316, 318 ( 494 SE2d 14 ) (1997) (“[W]hen an employee steps aside from his employer’s business to do some act of his own, not connected with his employer’s business, the relationship of employer and employee, or master and servant, is, as to that act, completely

2012Hiers, Jr. et al., Ga. Workers’ Compensation Law & Practice, § 5-3 (5th ed.) (Georgia cases largely merge three analytical approaches to the “arising out of” the course of the employment requirement: the increased-risk, the actual-risk, and the positional-risk doctrines). 5 See also Olde South Custom Landscaping v. Mathis, 229 Ga. App. 316, 318 ( 494 SE2d 14 ) (1997) (“[W]hen an employee steps aside from his employer’s business to do some act of his own, not connected with his employer’s business, the relationship of employer and employee, or master and servant, is, as to that act, completely

2004Thornton, New Amsterdam , and Edwards make this clear by stating explicitly that the positional risk doctrine does not *571 apply where the risk which causes the employee's injury "is also common to the general public without regard to such conditions, and [occurs] independently of place, employment, or pursuit." Thornton, 198 Ga. at 793 , 32 S.E.2d 816 (citation and punctuation omitted); New Amsterdam, 30 Ga.App. at 690 , 118 S.E. 786 ; Edwards, 152 Ga.App. at 567 , 263 S.E.2d 455 .

2004Thornton, New Amsterdam , and Edwards make this clear by stating explicitly that the positional risk doctrine does not *571 apply where the risk which causes the employee's injury "is also common to the general public without regard to such conditions, and [occurs] independently of place, employment, or pursuit." Thornton, 198 Ga. at 793 , 32 S.E.2d 816 (citation and punctuation omitted); New Amsterdam, 30 Ga.App. at 690 , 118 S.E. 786 ; Edwards, 152 Ga.App. at 567 , 263 S.E.2d 455 .