Atherholt v. William Stoddart Co.
| Decision Date | 03 May 1926 |
| Docket Number | 170 |
| Citation | 133 A. 504,286 Pa. 278 |
| Parties | Atherholt v. William Stoddart Co., Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
Argued April 12, 1926
Appeal, No. 170, Jan. T., 1926, by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Luzerne Co., Oct. T., 1925, No. 2485, affirming decision of Workmen's Compensation Board, allowing claim in case of Hazel Atherholt v. William Stoddart Co. Affirmed.
Appeal from decision of Workmen's Compensation Board allowing claim. Before FULLER, P.J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Decision affirmed. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned was, inter alia, judgment, quoting record.
The judgment is affirmed.
E. F McGovern, with him Harry Reiss Axelroth and Arthur Thorburn Porteous, for appellant, cited: Byrne v. Brewing Co., 259 Pa. 357.
Roger J. Dever, for appellee, cited: Tarr v. Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519; Crouse v. Lubin, 260 Pa. 329.
Before MOSCHZISKER, C.J., FRAZER, WALLING, SIMPSON, KEPHART, SADLER and SCHAFFER, JJ.
This is an appeal by the William Stoddart Co., a corporation, from a judgment affirming an award made by the Workmen's Compensation Board in favor of claimant, Hazel Atherholt, for the death of her husband, Loren Atherholt. Claimant's husband was regularly employed as private chauffeur by Harry Stoddart, who was president of defendant corporation. At times, however, Atherholt, at Stoddart's request, went to defendant's establishment and assisted in the business there conducted, but he received no compensation from the corporation. While engaged, with two regular employees of defendant, in delivering goods for the company, from its truck, which he had been driving, Atherholt fell and sustained injuries that led to his death. Defendant resisted the claims for compensation on the ground that Atherholt was not an employee of the Stoddart Company, but only of Harry Stoddart, individually. The referee found that the injury was sustained as an employee of defendant, and awarded compensation accordingly, which award was affirmed by the board and the court of common pleas.
It is not disputed that Atherholt suffered this injury while engaged in carrying on the regular business of defendant, and that it was customary for him to render such service more or less frequently. As was said in Tarr v. Hecla Coal & Coke Co., 265 Pa. 519, 522, "The finding of a temporary employment by defendant is not inconsistent with the finding of a general employment [by another employer], and being one of fact we are concluded thereby." So here, the finding that Atherholt was temporarily employed by defendant is not inconsistent with his admitted general employment by Harry Stoddart, and there being sufficient evidence to support such a finding (Tarr v Hecla Coal & Coke Co., supra, and cases there cited: Cayll v. Gas & Elec. Co., 172 Wis. 554, 179 N.W. 771), we are bound thereby: Thomas v. State Workmen's Ins. Fund, 280 Pa. 331, 333; Vorbnoff v. Mesta...
To continue reading
Request your trial