Dowis v. Mud Slinger Concrete Inc.

The exclusive remedy provision of Georgia's Workers' Compensation Act precluded any tort action against the defendants arising out of the injuries the plaintiff sustained while working for defendants in Georgia, even though the defendants did not pay the plaintiff benefits under the Georgia Act.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Johnny Edwin Dowis and Elysa Michele Dowis, Plaintiffs, appeal the grant of summary judgment on their tort action against Mud Slinger, Inc., Plaintiff’s employer, and Michael Clement Graves, President of the corporate Defendant, foreman, and co-worker. The employer is a Missouri corporation, which paid Plaintiff workers’ compensation benefits under Missouri law for an injury occurring on the job in Georgia. The trial court applied the exclusive remedy provision of the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act, OCGA § 34-9-11 et seq., and the lex loci delicti rule as to the applicable choice of substantive law. Plaintiffs want to use the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act, because it would allow him to sue his employer and the president under Georgia tort law. Finding no error, we affirm. The Plaintiff, Johnny Edwin Dowis, was a Tennessee resident, hired by the Missouri Defendants to hang large sheets of precast plaster molding in a Baymont Inn & Suites in Roswell, Fulton County, Georgia. While working in Roswell, Georgia, Plaintiff was in a basket manlift of a telescopic boom forklift operated by the Defendant Graves for Plaintiff’s employer. The boom tipped over, causing the Plaintiff to fall four stories. Plaintiff filed a Worker’s Compensation claim against the Defendant-employer in Missouri rather than under the Georgia Workers’ Compensation Act.

1. The Plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Defendants.

Dowis v. Mud Slinger Concrete Inc.

The exclusive remedy provision of Georgia's Workers' Compensation Act precluded any tort action against the defendants arising out of the injuries the plaintiff sustained while working for defendants in Georgia, even though the defendants did not pay the plaintiff benefits under the Georgia Act.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report