FOURTH D I VI SI ON DI L LA RD, P. J. , B ROWN and PA DGETT, JJ.

N O T IC E : M o tions for r e c ons i de r a tion m us t be phy s ic a lly r

e ce iv ed i n our c le r k ’s offic e w ithin te n da y s of the da te of de c is ion to be de e m ed tim e ly file d.

https ://w w w

. ga a ppe a ls .us /r ule s

October 7, 2024



# In t he C ourt o f A ppe a ls o f G e o r g ia

A 24A 0 6 23. SI M M ON S et al. v

. SOLO CUP OPERA TI N G CORPORA T I ON

.

D I L L A R D , Presid ing J u d ge.

The trial co u rt granted So lo Cu p Op erating C o r p o ratio n’ s m o t io n to d ismiss

this wro ngf

u l- d eath ac tio n, 1 ho ld ing that it w a s b arred by the Geo rgia W o rk ers’

Co mp e nsatio n A c t. Fo r the f o llo w ing reaso ns, w e rev erse. 2

The u nd isp u ted f

ac t s sho w th a t S o l o m anu f ac tu res single- use pro d u c ts f o r f o o d

and bev erage p ac k aging a t a plant in Co nyers— e. g. , the u biqu ito us red So lo c u p

. On

1 W e rev iew a trial c o u rt’ s grant o f a mo tio n to d ismiss de n o v o

. S ee D en n i s v

. C i t y o f Atla n ta , 324 Ga. A p p

. 6 59 , 6 59 ( 7 51 SE2d 46 9 ) (201 3); a cco rd N o rma n v

. Xytex C o rp. , 31 0 Ga. 1 27 , 1 30 (2) (848 SE2d 835) (2020).

2 O ral argu m ent w as held o n A p ril 1 0, 2024, and is arc hiv ed o n the Co u rt’ s

w ebsite. S ee Co u rt o f A p p eals o f t h e S ta te o f Geo rgia, Oral A rgu ment, Case N o. A 24A 06 23 (A p r. 1 0, 2024), a v a i la ble a t http s: //v imeo

. c o m/9 3457 1 504

.D ec ember 1 3, 201 9 , the d ec ed ent—Tau ru s A nd rew s , w ho w o r k e d at the

p l ant—d isc o v ered a small bag c o ntaining sev eral id entif ic atio n card s in a men ’ s

restro o m. A nd rew s tu rned the bag o v er his su p e rv iso r, who then to o k it t o a n o t h er

su p erv iso r. That su p erv iso r retu rned the bag to Camro n G o ld e n, w ho also w o rk ed at

the f ac to ry. Prio r to that d ay, And rew s and Go ld en w er e no t ac qu ainted w ith o ne

ano ther.

Onc e the b a g w as retu rned t o him, Go ld en d isc o v ered that $400 w as missing.

H e ask e d w ho r ec o v ered the bag, and a su p erv iso r to ld him it w as A nd rew s. Go ld en

then c o nf

r o nted A nd rew s , w ho d enied tak ing the mo ney. B u t Go ld en w as

u nc o nv inc ed by this d enial, a nd he to ld ot h e r em p l o yees he believ ed A nd rew s had

sto len his mo ney. Go ld en then re t r i e v e d a hand gu n and sho t A nd rew s at the p lant,
tragic ally k illing him. 3

D ebo rah Simmo ns—A nd rew s’ s m o ther and legal heir—f iled a wro ngf

u l- d eath

ac tio n against So lo and o t her d e f e n d a n t s, alleging that So lo negligently hired and

retained Go ld en and negligently f ai l e d t o keep its p remises saf e. So lo f iled a mo tio n

3 Go ld e n w a s later ind ic ted f or mu r d er and o ther c rimes, a nd he u lt i m a t e l y p lead ed gu ilty to k illing A nd rew s.

2to d ismiss, 4 argu ing the trial c o u r t l ac k ed su bj ec t- matter j u risd ic t io n bec au se the

a c t io n w as barred by the exc lu siv ity p ro v isio n o f the W o r k ers’ Co mp ensatio n A c t
(“ WCA ” ). Fo llo wing extensiv e brief ing, a p erio d o f limited d isc o v ery, and a mo tio n
hearing, t he t r ial c o u rt granted So lo ’ s mo tio n to d ismiss. The c o u rt then d irec ted the

entry o f f inal j u dgment as to So lo

. 5 This ap p e al f o llo w s.

1

. Simmo ns f

irst c ontend s the trial c o u rt erred in c o nc lu d ing that the W CA ’ s

exc lu siv ity bar is a qu estio n o f su bj ec t- matter j u risd ic t io n. T his c laim is no t p ro p erly

bef o re u s.

A s a general p r inc ip le, the W CA is t he exc lu siv e remed y f o r a w o rk er o r next

o f k in w ho su s tains an “ inj u ry” arising o u t o f and in t he co u rse of em p lo yment. 6

4 S ee OCGA § 9

- 1 1- 1 2 (b) (1 )

.

5 S ee OCGA § 9 -1 1 -54 (b).

6 See OCGA §§ 34- 9

- 1 1 (a) (“ T he rights and the r e m ed ies granted to an emp lo yee by t his c hap ter shall exc lu d e and b e in p lac e of a ll o t her rights and remed ies

o f su ch emp lo yee, his o r her p erso nal rep resentativ e, p arents, d ep end ents, o r next o f k in, and a ll o ther c iv il liabilities w hatso ev e r at c o m mo n law o r o therw ise, o n ac c o u nt

o f su c h inj u ry, lo ss of serv ic e, o r d eath[. ]” ) ; 34- 9

- 1 (4) (d ef ining an inj u ry or p erso nal inj ury f o r p u rp o s es o f t h e W C A a s an “ inj u ry by ac c id e nt arising o u t o f and in the

c o u rse of emp lo y m ent” ); S mi th v

. C a ma ren a , 352 G a. A p p

. 7 9 7, 7 9 8 ( 2) (835 SE2d 7 1 2) (201 9 ) (exp laining that p laintif f s m ay no t p u rsu e a to rt ac t io n w hen a w o r k e r’ s d eath is c o mp ensable u nd er the W CA ).

3B e ginning w ith Kello gg C o

. v

. Pi n ks to n , 7 this Co u rt has held that t he e xc lu s iv ity bar is

an issu e of su bj e c t- matter ju risd ic tio n. 8 Simmo ns asserts this Co u rt ’ s d e c isio ns in

Kello gg and its p ro geny are w ro ngly d ec id ed , c o ntrary to o ther d ec isio ns f ro m this

Co u rt 9 and the Su p reme Co urt o f Geo rgia, 1 0 a nd sho u ld be d isap p ro v ed o r o v erru led

.

I n So lo ’ s o riginal m otio n to d ismiss ( f iled in M arc h 2022), So lo argu ed the trial

co u rt lac ked s u bj ec t- matter j u risd ic tio n bec au se Simmo ns’ s claims were barred by t h e

W CA

. Ov er the next 1 8 mo nths, d esp ite f iling sev e ral d if

f erent resp onses, Simmo ns

nev er c laimed the exc lu siv ity bar w as no t an issu e o f s u bj ec t- matter j u risd ic tio n o r that

Kello gg and its p ro g e ny w ere w r o ngly dec id ed

. Rather, Simmo ns c o nsistently

7 253 Ga. A p p. 1 9 0 (558 SE2d 423) (2001 ).

8 S ee i d

. at 1 9 1- 9 2 ( 1 ) (558 SE2d 423) ( 2001 ) (ho ld ing the trial c ou rt w as u nd er
a d u ty to d ismiss p laintif f’ s c o mp la int fo r lac k o f su bj ec t- matter j urisd ic tio n w hen W CA w as p laintif

f ’ s exc lu siv e r emed y); s ee a ls o T & R S

. Sa n i ta ti o n v. Lo we , 36 5 Ga. A p p

. 220, 221 (1 ) (87 8 SE2d 7 7 ) (2022) (c onsid ering f or the fi r s t t i m e o n ap p eal emp lo yer’ s c laim that the trial c o u r t lac k e d s u b j e c t- matter j u risd ic tio n bec au se p laintif f ’ s c laims fell within the exc lu siv e j u risd ic t io n o f the WCA ); S a v a n n a h Ho s p. S erv s

. , L L C v

. S cri

v e n , 350 Ga. A p p

. 1 9 5, 1 9 9 , n. 4 (828 SE2d 423) (201 9 ) (c iting Kello gg , s u pra , f o r the p ro po sitio n that “ the ap p lic atio n o f the exc lu siv ity bar is ak in
to an issu e o f

the trial c o u rt’ s su bj ec t[- ] matter j u risd ic tio n” ).

9 Utz v

. Po well , 1 6 0 Ga. A p p

. 888 (288 SE2d 6 01 ) (1 982).

1 0 Smi t h v

. E lli s , 29 1 Ga. 56 6 (7 31 SE2d 7 31 ) ( 2 0 1 2 ) ; Jo hn so n v

. Hen sel Phelps C o n s t. C o

. , 250 Ga. 83 (29 5 SE2d 841 ) (1 9 82).

4maintained the trial c ou rt had su b j ec t- matter j u risd ic tio n bec au se her c laims f ell

o u tsid e o f the W CA

. 1 1

Su f f ic e it to say, this Co u rt may ref u se to rev iew issu es no t raised i n t he trial

c o u r t; 1 2 and f

o r go o d reaso n—f

airness to the trial c o u rt and p arties “ d emand s th at
legal issu es be asserted in the trial c o u r t. ” 1 3 So , bec au se t his issu e w as no t raised

1 1 A p arty m a y raise a t any time a c hallenge to the trial c o u rt’ s su bj ec t- matter j u risd ic tio n, see Ab u s

hma i s v

. E rb y , 282 Ga. 6 1 9 , 622 (3) (6 52 SE2d 549 ) (2007 ) (“ The

c o u rt’ s lac k o f s u bj ec t- matter j urisd ic t io n c a nno t b e w a iv e d a nd may be raised at any time either in the trial co u rt, i n a c o l l at e r a l attac k on a ju d gment, o r in an a p p eal. ” (c itatio n and p u nc t u atio n o mitted )), bu t Simm o n s do es no t c o ntend the trial c o urt lac k ed su bj ec t- matter j u r isd ic tio n o v er this c a se.

1 2 S ee Pfei ffer v. Ga

. D ep’ t o

f Tra n sp. , 27 5 Ga. 827 , 829 (2) ( 57 3 SE2d 38 9 ) (2 00 2 ) (“ [A ]bsent sp ec ial c irc u mstanc es, a n ap p ellate c o u rt need no t c o nsid er argu ments raised f

o r the f i rst time o n ap p eal. ” (f

o o tno te omitted )); S a n ta n a v

. Ga

. Po wer C o. , 26 9 Ga. 1 27 , 1 29 (6 ) ( 49 8 SE2d 521 ) (1 9 9 8) (ho ld ing that bec au se a c ertain argu ment w as no t raised and ru led o n by the trial c o u rt, the Su preme Co u rt o f Geo rgia

w o u ld no t ad d ress it o n ap p eal); G a

. D e p’ t of N atu ra l Res

. v

. C

o weta C n ty. , 26 1 Ga. 484, 485 (405 SE2d 47 0) ( 1 9 9 1 ) (“ Issu es w hic h hav e no t b ee n r u l e d o n b y the trial

c o u rt may no t be raised o n ap peal. ” ); Pn eu mo Ab ex , LLC v. Lo n

g , 357 G a. A p p

. 1 7 , 29 (2) (849 SE2d 746 ) (2020) (“ As w e hav e rep eated ly exp lained , t his is a Co u rt f o r the

c o rrec t io n o f erro rs o f law , and if the trial c o u rt has no t ru led o n an issu e , w e w ill no t ad d ress it. I nd e ed , w itho u t a ru ling by the trial c o u r t o n a p artic u lar issu e, there is

no thing f or this Co u rt to rev iew u p o n ap p eal. ” ( pu nc t u atio n and fo o tno te o m itted )).

1 3 Pfei ffer , 27 5 Ga. at 829 (2).

5be l o w , w e leav e f o r ano t her d ay the reso lu t io n o f this interesting—bu t

u np reserv ed —c laim o f

erro r. 1 4

2. I n a related c laim of erro r, Simmo ns c o ntend s the trial c o u rt erred in ho ld ing

that she bo re the bu rd en of p ro v ing the W CA did no t ap p ly bec au s e t he exc lu siv ity bar

is an af f irmativ e d ef

ense. A sid e f

ro m general allegatio ns that So lo c o u ld no t meet its

bu rd en o f sho w ing the W CA ap p lied , Simmo ns similarly d id no t raise this issu e in the

trial c o u rt belo w , and w e w ill no t c o nsid er it f o r the f irst time o n ap peal. 1 5

3. Tu rning t o the merits o f the trial c o urt’ s ru ling, Simmo ns c ontend s the trial

c o u rt erred in granting So lo ’ s mo tio n to d ismiss bec au se her to rt c laims are no t barred

u nd er the W CA

. W e agree.

A s an initial matter, th i s c a s e c omes t o u s in a so mew hat u nu su al pro c ed u ral

p o stu re. A mo tio n t o d ismiss f o r lac k of su bj ec t

- matt e r ju risd ic tio n u nd er OCGA

§ 9

- 11

- 1 2 (b) (1 ) c an “allege either a f a c ial c hallenge, in w hic h the c o u rt a c c ep ts as tru e

the allegatio ns o n the f

ac e o f the c o mp laint o r a f a c tu al challenge, w hic h requ ires

1 4 S ee s u p ra no t e 1 2.

1 5 S ee s u pra no te 1 2.

6c o nsid eratio n o f ev id enc e beyo nd the f ac e o f the c o mp laint. ” 1 6 Su c h a mo tio n “ may

be heard a nd d etermined bef o re trial[. ]” 1 7 A nd at su c h a hearing, f ac tu a l issu es “ shall

be determined by t he trial co u rt[,]” a nd they “ w ill be rev ersed o nly w h ere the

ev id enc e d emand s a co ntrary f ind ing[. ] ” 1 8 W hen the trial j u d ge co nd u c ts a hearing o n

a mo tio n to d ismiss

. . . ,” the c ou rt’ s f ind ings are “ t ested by the a ny ev id enc e ru le. ” 1 9

B u t i m p o rtantly, when a def end ant asserts a lac k o f su bj ec t- matter j u risd ic tio n in a

mo tio n t o dismiss, the p lain t i f f “ bears the bu rd en o f e stablishing that j u risd ic tio n
exists,” 2 0 and w e rev iew the grant o f su c h a mo tio n de n o v o

. 2 1

1 6 D o u gla s C n ty. v

. Ha mi

lto n S ta t e Ba n k , 340 Ga. A pp

. 801 , 801 (7 9 8 SE2d 509 ) (201 7 ) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); s ee OCGA § 9 -1 1

- 1 2 (h) (3) (“ W henev er it ap pears, by

su ggestio n o f the p arties o r o therw ise, that the co u rt lac k s j u risd ic t io n o f the su bj ec t matter, the c o u rt shall d ismiss the ac tio n. ” ).

1 7 C o n ra d v

. C

o n ra d , 27 8 Ga. 1 07 , 1 0 9 (59 7 SE2d 36 9 ) (2004) (p u n c t u a t i o n
o mitted )

.

1 8 Id. (p unc t u atio n o mitted ).

1 9 Id

. (p unc t u atio n o mitted ).

2 0 S ti llwell v

. To

pa In s

. C o

. , 36 3 Ga. A p p . 1 26 , 1 27 (87 1 SE2d 8) (2022); a cco rd D o u gla s C n ty. , 340 Ga. A p p

. at 801

.

2 1 S ee s u p ra no te 1 & ac c o mp anying text.

7Tu rning to the W CA , as a general m atter, this statu te is the exc lu s iv e remed y

f o r a w o rk er o r next o f

k in w ho su stains an “ inj u ry” arising o ut o f and in the c o u r se

o f emp lo yment. 2 2 Fu rther, w hether a n inj u ry “ a r i s e s o u t o f and in t he co u rse o f

emp lo yment is ge n e r a l ly a mixed qu e stio n o f law a nd f ac t,” 2 3 a nd these tw o

p rerequ isites are “ ind ep e nd ent and d istinc t [. ]” 2 4 A nd w hile the W CA is intend ed to

hav e bro ad ap p lic a tio n, 2 5 there are exc ep tio ns to t his sw eep ing c o v erage. 2 6 As relev ant
here, if the w illf ul ac t o f a third p erso n is “ d irec ted against an emp lo yee f o r reaso ns

2 2 S ee s u pra no te 6 & ac c o mp anying text.

2 3 Ki l v

. Legen d Bro s

. , LLC, 350 Ga

. A p p

. 6 80, 6 81 (830 SE2d 245) (201 9 ) ( p u nc tu atio n o mitted ); a cco rd Lee v

. S ea rs , 223 Ga. A p p

. 89 7 , 89 7 (47 9 SE2d 1 9 6 ) (1 9 9 6 ).

2 4 Frett v

. Sta te Fa rm E mp. W o rkers ’ C o mp. , 309 Ga. 44, 46 (2) (844 SE2d 7 49 ) (2020) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted )

.

2 5 S ee OCGA § 34- 9

- 23 (“ This c hap ter s hall b e liberally c onstru ed o nly f o r the p u rp o se o f bringing emp lo yers and emp l o y e e s w ithin the pro visio ns o f t his c hap ter and t o p ro v id e pro tec t io n f o r b o th. This c hap ter is intend ed to p ro v id e a c omp lete and

exc lu siv e system and pro c e d u re f o r the reso lu t io n o f d isp u tes betw een emp lo yers and emp lo yees w ho are su bj ec t to t his c hap ter c o nc e r ning a c c id ents and inj uries arising

o u t o f and in the c o urse o f

emp lo yment as d ef

ined by this c hap ter. ” ).

2 6 See Hen nly v

. Ri

c ha rds o n , 26 4 Ga. 355, 356 (1 ) (444 SE2d 31 7 ) (1 99 4).

8p erso nal to su c h emp lo yee, then there is no t a c o vered inj u ry[. ]” 2 7 Fu rther, in o rd er

to d etermine if the assau lt o c c u rred f o r reaso ns p erso nal to the emp lo yee, w e c o nsid er

w hether “ the inj u ries o f whic h the emp lo yee c o mp lains (1 ) aro se o ut o f and (2) in the

c o u rse o f his emp lo yment. ” 2 8 I f bo th o f these c ond itio ns are met, any to r t c laims are

barred by the exc lu siv e- remed y p ro v isio ns o f the W CA ; o n the o ther hand , if either

c o nd itio n is no t met, then the inj u ry aro se fro m “reaso ns p erso nal” to the e mp lo yee,

and the p laintif

f ’ s to rt c laims are no t barred

. 2 9

2 7 Po tts v

. UAP- Ga

. Agri

c. C hem. , In c

. , 27 0 G a. 1 4, 1 5 (506 SE2d 1 01 ) (1 9 9 8); s ee OCGA § 34- 9- 1 (4) ( exc lu d ing an “ inj ury c au s ed by the w illf ul ac t o f a third p erso n d irec ted against an emp lo yee f o r reaso ns p erso nal to su c h emp lo yee” f ro m t he W CA d ef initio n o f “ inj u ry” ).

2 8 S tu rges s v

. OA Lo gi s ti cs S erv s

. , In c. , 336 Ga. A p p

. 1 34, 1 35 (1 ) (7 84 SE2d 432) (201 6 ) (p u nc tu atio n o m itted ); a cco rd Po tts , 27 0 Ga. at 1 5.

2 9 Po tts , 27 0 Ga. at 1 5 (“ W hether an inj u ry is c o mp ens a b l e o r o nly a
no n- co mp ensable o c c u rrenc e d u e to reaso ns p e rso nal to the emp lo yee is d ep end ent

u p o n w hether the inj ury aro se o u t o f and in the co u rse o f t he emp lo y ment. I t has lo ng b e e n established t hat the statu to ry requ irements that the inj u ry a rise ‘ o u t o f ’ the emp lo yment and ‘ in the c o u rse o f ’ the emp lo yment bo th mu st c o nc u r bef o re the [W CA ] c an ap ply to an inj ury to an emp lo yee. ” (c itatio n a nd p u nc tu atio n o mitted )); S tu rges s , 336 Ga. A p p

. at 1 35- 1 36 (1 ) (exp laining t hat if an emp lo y ee’ s inj u ries (1 ) aro se
o u t o f a nd ( 2) in the c o u rse o f his emp lo y ment, then the emp lo yee’ s t o r t c l a i m s are barred by the exc lu siv e remed y p ro v isio ns o f the W CA ).

9I n this c a se, Simmo ns c o nc ed es that A n d e r so n’ s k illing aro se “ in the c o u r se

o f ” his emp lo yment. Ev e n so , she c o ntend s t his k i l l i n g d id no t “arise o u t of ”

A nd erso n’ s emp lo yment, bu t rat h e r , f o r “ r easo ns p erso nal” to him. 3 0 A nd as

p e r t i n e n t here, the “ arising ou t of ” p rerequ isite “ d eal s wi t h ca u s a t i o n

. ” 3 1 S p e ci fi ca l l y ,
the w o rd s “ arising o u t of ” mean “ there mu st be so me c au sal c o nnec tio n betw een the

c o nd itio ns u nd er whic h the emp lo yee w o rk ed and the inj u ry w hic h he rec eiv ed [,]”

and the “ c au sativ e d anger mu st be inc id ental to the charac ter o f the emp lo yment, and

no t ind e p end ent of the relatio n o f master and serv ant. ” 3 2 On the o t h e r h a n d , the

d ef initio n “ exc lu d es an inj u ry w hic h c an no t fairly be trac ed to t he emp lo yment as a

c o ntribu ting p r o ximate c au se, and w hic h c omes f r o m a haz ard to w hic h the w o rk men

w o u ld hav e been equ ally exp o sed ap art f r o m the emp lo yment. ” 3 3 So , to be c onsid ered

3 0 Simmo ns argu es that ap p lic at i o n o f the “ reaso ns p erso nal” exc ep tio n is ind ep end ent o f w hether an inj u ry arises o ut o f emp lo yment. B u t as no ted abo v e, the
tw o tests are related

. S ee s u p ra no tes 28- 29 & ac c o mp anying text.

3 1 Frett , 309 Ga. at 49 (2) (b).

3 2 Id. at 50 (2) (b) (“ The ac cid ent mu st be o ne resu lting fro m a risk reaso nably inc id ent to the emp lo y m ent. A nd a risk is inc id e nt to the emp lo yment w hen it belo ngs to , o r is c o nnec ted w ith, what a w o rk man has to d o in f u lf illing his c o ntrac t o f

serv ic e. ” (p u nc t u atio n o mitted )); a cco rd S tu rges s , 336 Ga. A p p

. at 1 36 (1 ).

3 3 S tu rges s , 336 Ga. A p p

. at 1 36 (1 ) (p unc t u atio n o mitted ).

10an inj u ry arising o u t o f emp lo yment, it m u st “ either b e c a u sed by ac tiv ity the

emp lo yee e n g a g e d i n a s p art o f his or her j ob, or the inj u ry mu st resu lt f ro m so me

sp ec ial d a nger o f

the emp lo yment. ” 3 4 I nd eed , in c ases w here an emp lo yee

is inj u red in a p hysic al a lterc atio n w ith ano ther perso n o c c u rring o n the j o b bu t stemming f

ro m p erso nal animo sity, his inj u ries w ill nev ertheless be c o nsid ered c o mp ensable u nd er the [W CA ] if it is s ho wn that the animo sity aro se f

ro m reaso ns related t o the emp lo yee’ s p erf o rmanc e o f his w o rk

- related d u ties. Co nv ersel y , i f t he animo sity giv ing rise to the

assau lt stemmed f

r o m reaso ns no t related to t h e i n j u red emp lo yee’ s
p erf o rmanc e o f his w o r k , t h e n his inj u ries w ill no t be c onsid ered

c o mp ensable u nd er the [W CA ]. 3 5

A s a resu lt, w hile w e r ev iew the trial c ou rt’ s f ac t u al f ind ings f o r a n y ev id enc e, 3 6 it

remains the “ resp o nsibility o f this Co urt t o rev iew t he legal framew o rk w ithin w hic h

3 4 C a rters v i lle C i t y Sc h

. v

. J o hn s on , 345 G a. A p p

. 29 0, 29 7 (81 2 SE2d 605) (201 8) (p u nc tu atio n o mitted ).

3 5 W es tern Wa terpro o

fi n g C o

. , In c

. v

. Ro gers , 204 G a

. A p p

. 7 7 9 , 7 80 (1 ) (420 SE2d 6 06 ) (1 99 2) (emp hasis o mitted ); a cco rd Hea rd v

. Mi tchell’ s F o r m a l W ea r, In c. , 249 Ga. A p p

. 49 2, 49 3 (1 ) (549 SE2d 1 49 ) (2001 )

.

3 6 S ee s upra no te 1 9 & ac c o mp anying text.

11the f

ac t- f ind er o p erated , and thu s to d ef ine w hat ‘ arising o ut o f ’ e mp lo yment means

as a matter o f

law .” 3 7

H e r e, t he t rial c o u rt f o u nd So lo had hu man- r eso urc e p olic ies and

p ro c ed ure s

— d i s cu s s e d d u r i n g n e w- h i r e o r i e n t a t i o n

— r e g a r d i n g t h e co m p a ny’ s v alu es

o f ho nesty, integrity, and c leanliness, w hic h requ ired A nd rew s to tu rn o ver Go ld en’ s

lo st o r mislaid bag. Emp lo yees w ere also instru cted to p ro mp tly rep o rt any su sp ec ted

i l l egal o r u nethic al behav io r

. A d d itio nally, the c o u rt p o inted to ev id enc e t hat A nd re ws

mentio ned to ano ther emp lo yee that he lo o ked insid e o f the bag and “ the tho u ght

w as” Go ld en w as inv olv ed in s o me k ind o f frau d

. A nd based on this e v id enc e, the trial

c o u rt c o nc lu d ed A nd rew s w as r equ ired by So lo ’ s po lic ies to t u rn o v e r Go ld en’ s lo st

o r mislaid bag.

The trial c o u rt also no ted that, o n the d ay o f the sho o ting, G o ld e n texted the

f o llo w ing messages: “ I f

ou nd o u t w ho bo ught the b ag bac k ” ; “ [So lo ] j u st a in’ t d o in

s* ** [. ] I t alk to the [p e rso n. ] I d o ne ro b & sto l e s o m u c h [ I kno w] when a [p erso n]

3 7 C a rters v i l le C i ty S ch. , 345 Ga. A p p

. a t 29 6 ; s ee C o lema n v

. C

o lu mn s P ro perti e s , In c. , 26 6 G a. 31 0, 31 1 ( 46 7 SE2d 328) (1 9 9 6 ) (exp laining that whether inj u ry arises o u t

o f and in the c o u rse o f

emp lo yment is “ a mixed qu estio n o f f ac t and law ” )

.

12Gu ilty and he Gu ilty

. . . ” 3 8 A nd to a d if f e rent ind iv id u al, Go ld en texted : “ I talk ed 2
the [p erso n] w ho bro u ght the bag bac k 2 the su p erv iso r & I instantly k new his b* tc h

a* * to o k it” ; and later, “ I c a n’ t liv e here [no mo re] a [p erso n] sto le m y mo ney

. . . &

I sho t his .

. . a* *

. . . . ”

So , based o n t h e f

o r e go ing, the trial c o u rt r easo ned t hat p rio r to the d ate in

qu estio n, there was no animo sity b etw e en Go ld en and A nd r e w s , bu t—u p o n

d isc ov ering that his mo ney w as missing

— G o l d e n bec ame angry w ith A nd rew s

bec au se he w as t he p erso n w ho bro u ght the b ag to a su p erv iso r. Co ntinu ing, the trial

c o u rt e xp lained that “ [w ]hile Go ld e n’ s a nimo sity w as p erso nal, betw een himself and

A nd rew s , the animo sity aro se bec au se o f what A nd r e w s w as requ ired to d o as an

emp lo yee o f [So lo ]—tu rn in the bag to a su p erv iso r. ” I n the trial c o u rt’ s v iew ,
Go ld en’ s anger to w ard A nd rew s aro se f r om the perf

o r manc e o f

his j o b d uties— i

. e. ,

tu rning in Go ld en’ s mislaid bag. W e d isagree.

3 8 Go ld en u sed a rac ial slu r thro u gho u t his messages, w hic h the tria l c o u r t rep lac ed w ith “p erso n. ” W e w ill d o the same here. W e hav e a lso u sed a sterisk s in

rec o u nting Go ld en’ s p ro f anity.

13Retu rning a bag to its rightf u l o wner, w hether in c omp lianc e w ith o ne’ s w o rk

ru les o r merely as a pro v erbial G o o d Samaritan, 3 9 d o es no t o f t en inc u r wrath. A nd

here, there is no ev id enc e Go ld en w as angry bec au se A nd rew s t u rned in t h e bag.

No tably, altho u gh tw o o ther emp lo yees—bo th su p erv iso rs—w er e a l s o i n v o l v e d i n t h e

retu rn of G o l d en ’ s bag, there is no ev id enc e Go ld en targeted them. Rather, the

ev id enc e—as f

o u nd by t h e tr i a l c o u rt—sho w s that Go ld en w as angry a t A nd rew s

bec au se he believ e d A nd rew s sto le mo ney f r o m him. So , bec au se any a lleged thef t w as
entirely u nrelated to A nd rew s’ s p e r f o rmanc e o f his w o rk , w e f ind —as a matter o f

law —that the W CA d o es no t ap p ly here. 4 0

3 9 S ee gen era lly

T H E H O L Y B I B L E , Lu k e 1 0: 29

- 37

.

4 0 S ee Li n ds ey v

. W

in n D i x i e S to res , In c. , 186 G a. A p p

. 86 7 , 86 8 (1 ) (36 8 SE2d 81 3) (1 9 88) (ho ld ing t h a t em p lo yer w a s no t entitled to su mmary j u d gment w hen

e v id enc e sho w e d that e mp lo yee’ s alterc atio n w ith c ow o rk er w as the r esu lt o f nam e
c alling and no t related to e mp lo yee’ s j o b d u ties); W a l s h Co n st. C

o. v

. H a m i lto n , 1 85 Ga. A p p

. 1 05, 1 05- 06 (36 3 SE2d 301 ) (1 9 87 ) (ho ld ing that W CA d id no t ap p ly w hen

w o rk er w as attac k e d by c o w ork e r w ho o bj ec ted to w o rk er begging fo r f o o d ); Ha rtfo rd Acci d en t & In dem. C

o

. v

. Za chery , 6 9 Ga. A p p

. 250, 251 (3) (25 SE2d 1 3 5 ) ( 1 9 43) (ho ld ing that W CA d id no t ap p ly w hen c laimant was attac k ed b y a c o wo rk er bec au se
c o w o rk er w as “p ro v o k ed by the rep eated a c c u satio ns o f the c laimant that he w as a talebearer, and no t bec au se the c laimant w as late f o r w o rk or b ec a u se o f anything being d o ne by him inc id e ntal to his e mp lo yment” ). C f. S wa n s o n v

. Lo ckheed Ai rcra ft C o rp. , 1 81 Ga. A p p

. 87 6 , 87 9

- 81 (1 ) (b), (c ) (354 SE2d 204) (1 9 87 ) (ho ld ing t hat assau lt aro se
o u t o f instru c to r’ s emp lo yment w hen it resu lted f r o m e a rlier c o nf

ro ntatio n o v er stu d ent’ s test resu lts).

14Ev en s o , So lo c ontend s the p o sitio nal- risk d o ctrine a p p l ies in this c ase. This

d o c trine ho ld s that “ an ac cid e ntal inj u ry arises o u t of the emp lo yment w hen t h e

e mp lo yee p ro ves that his w ork bro u ght him within range o f the d anger b y r e q u i r i n g

his presenc e in the lo c ale w hen the p eril stru ck , ev en tho u gh any o ther perso n p resent

w o u ld hav e also been inj u red irresp ec tiv e of his emp lo yment. ” 4 1 Thu s, altho ugh being

assau lted is “ no t an o bv io u s p art o f mo st jo bs, the [W CA ] c o m p ensates f o r i n j u r ies

in c ases w here a n e mp lo yee is assau lted o r k illed if there is a no np erso nal, c au sal

c o nnec tio n to the w o rk

. ” 4 2 W e are lik ew ise u np ersu ad ed by this c o ntentio n.

A s p r e v i o u s ly no ted , A nd rew s’ s d eath r esu lted f ro m a perso nal matter:

Go ld en’ s belief that A nd rew s sto le mo ney f ro m him. This c ase, then, stand s in stark

c o ntrast f ro m the p o s itio nal- risk d ec isio ns relied up o n by So lo , in w hic h the inj u red

o r k illed w o rk e r w as essentially an inno c ent bystand er and no t att a c k e d f o r reaso ns

p erso nal to the w o rk er. 4 3 I nd eed , w e hav e held that

4 1 S tu rges s , 336 Ga. A p p

. at 1 37 (1 ) (p u nc tu atio n and emp hasis o mitted ); a cco rd C ha pa rra l Bo ats

, In c

. v

. Hea th , 26 9 Ga. A pp

. 339 , 341 (1 ) (6 06 SE2d 56 7) (2004).

4 2 D eKa l b C o l li s i o n C tr. , In c. v

. Fo ster , 254 Ga. A p p

. 47 7 , 481 (1 ) (56 2 SE2d 740) (2002).

4 3 S ee, e. g. , S tu rges

s , 336 Ga. Ap p

. at 1 35- 1 39 (1 ) ( h o ld ing that po sitio nal- risk d o c trine ap p lied w hen w o rk er w a s k illed by emp lo yee w ho so ught o u t and sexu a lly

15[ w ] h ere the inj u ry w o u ld hav e o cc u rred r egard less of w here the

emp lo yee w as r equ ired to be lo c ated , and resu lts fro m a r isk to w hic h the

emp lo yee w o u ld hav e been equ ally exp o sed ap art f ro m any c o nd itio n o f the e mp lo yment, there is no basis f or f ind ing a cau s al c o n n e c t io n betw een the emp lo yment and the inj u ry, and no basis f o r c o m p ensatio n

u nd er the p ositio nal[- ] risk d o c trine. 4 4

So , giv en the p artic u lar f ac ts o f this c ase ( as f

o u n d b y the trial co u rt), w e

c o nc lu d e that A nd rew s w as k illed f o r reaso ns perso nal to him, su c h that his inj u ry w as

assau lted ano ther emp lo yee bec au se emp lo y ment requ ired w ork er’ s p resenc e in the lo c ale where the p eril stru c k and , u nlik e in this c ase, exp o sed w o rk er to a “c o mmo n risk ” ) ; DeKa lb C

o lli s i o n C t r. , 254 Ga. A pp

. at 481 (1 ) (ho ld ing p o sitio nal- risk d o c trine ap p lied w hen w o r k er w as k illed w hile bre a k i n g u p a f ight betw een emp lo yer and

c o ntrac to r and no t ing that, “ [i]n this c ase, there is no ev id enc e that [the w o rk er’ s] d eath w as c au sally c o nnec ted to any p erso nal matters” ); E mpl’ rs In s

. C o

. o f Ala b a ma
v

. W ri ght , 1 08 Ga. A p p

. 380, 381 ( 1 33 SE2d 39 ) (1 9 6 3) (ho ld ing that p o s i t i o nal- risk d o c trine ap p lied w here w o rk er’ s emp lo yment inc reased her risk o f s exu a l a ssau lt and there w as “ no qu es tio n o f p rio r p erso nal m o t iv atio n or ill w ill betw een her and the assailant” ).

4 4 S tu rges s , 336 G a. A p p

. at 1 37

- 38 (p u nc tu atio n omitted ); a cco rd C ha pa rra l Bo a ts , 26 9 Ga. A p p. at 343 (1 ).

16no t c o v ered by t he WCA

. 4 5 A c c o rd i n g l y , t h e trial co u rt erred in granting So lo ’ s

mo tio n to d ismiss.

Ju dgmen t rev ers ed. Bro wn a n d Pa dgett, JJ. , co n c u r

.

4 5 Simmo ns also p o ints to ev id enc e t hat—lead ing up to t he s ho oting—Go ld en als o texted “ M o ney Only [thing] I trip abo u t,” and he ask ed ano ther emp lo yee f o r inf o rmatio n abo u t And rew s, inc lu d ing w hether the o ther emp lo y ee w o u ld b e w illing
to tak e A nd rew s ho me in exc ha n g e f or a mo netary p ayment. B u t w e need no t d etermine if this ev id e nc e d emand s a co ntrary f ind ing bec au s e, ev en und er the f ac ts

as f o und by the t rial c o u rt, the W C A d o es no t ap p ly as a matter o f law

. S ee C o n ra d , 27 8 Ga. at 1 09 (exp laining t hat “ [f ]ac t ual d eter m i n a t i o n s o f the t rier o f f ac t w ill be

rev e r s ed o n ly w here the ev id enc e d emand s a c o ntrary f ind ing” (p u nc tu atio n
o mitted ) ).

17