Capozzoli v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

• Decision Date: 21 May 1945
• Citation: 42 A.2d 524,352 Pa. 183
• Parties: Capozzoli, Admx., Appellant, v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

42 A.2d 524

352 Pa. 183

Capozzoli, Admx., Appellant, v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

May 21, 1945

Argued April 9, 1945

Appeal, No. 128, Jan. T., 1945, from judgment of C.P. No. 5 Phila. Co., June T., 1944, No. 1047, in case of Rose Capozzoli, Administratrix, v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp. Judgment affirmed.

Trespass for wrongful death.

Affidavit of defense raising questions of law sustained and judgment entered for defendant, opinion by SMITH, P.J. Plaintiff appealed.

The judgment is affirmed.

Edward W. Furia , for appellant.

Michael A. Foley , for appellee.

Before MAXEY C.J., DREW, LINN, STERN, PATTERSON, STEARNE and JONES,JJ.

OPINION

MR. JUSTICE PATTERSON

This is an action in trespass by Rose Capozzoli, administratrix of the estate of Joseph Capozzoli, against Stone &amp Webster Engineering Corporation, appellee, to recover damages for the death of her husband, Joseph, occasioned by the negligence of one of appellee's employees. Appellee filed an affidavit of defense raising questions of law, averring that appellee was decedent's statutory employer. This appeal is from the order of the court below sustaining the affidavit of defense and entering judgment for appellee.

On March 16, 1944, Joseph Capozzoli was employed by P.C. Hull subcontractor of the Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company. P.C. Hull had contracted to erect a salt extractor for Publicker. At the same time and on the same premises Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, appellee, was building a furnace, the contract for which work had been secured from Publicker. All the men engaged in the erection of the said furnace were employees of the appellee. Capozzoli, while acting in the course of his employment, was struck by a steel plate which one of appellee's employees had negligently permitted to fall from an overhead scaffold.

Appellant averred that appellee corporation was engaged in the dual capacity of agent for Publicker and as a subcontractor to contract with P.C. Hull and others for the performance of various types of services and supplies necessary for the completion of a synthetic rubber plant on Publicker's premises at Cornwall.

Attached to and made a part of the statement of claim was a contract dated December 13, 1943, between "Publicker Commercial Alcohol Company, Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, agents and P.C. Hull." This agreement between appellee, therein referred to as purchaser", and P.C. Hull, referred to as "subcontractor", set forth in detail the respective rights and duties. Hull was to complete the work in accordance with plans and specifications prepared or approved by appellee. Appellee had the right to increase or decrease and to change or alter the quantity or nature of the work; could grant an extension of time for completion of the work; could, for just cause, cancel the contract; and, could reject any defective work and discharge any of Hull's employees whom it decided was incompetent. Hull undertook to indemnify appellee, as well as Publicker, for the liens of labor, material, men and mechanics; defend all suits against appellee and Publicker or either of them for patent infringements; repair any defect without cost to appellee; give notice to appellee of any shipment of material; carry workmen's compensation insurance; secure insurance indemnifying appellee or himself against any damage to the tower under construction by him; and, replace and repair any damaged work to the satisfaction of appellee.

Appellant contends that the clear averment "that under the terms, conditions, and agreements entered into between the Publicker Alcohol Company and Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation and P.C. Hull, the Publicker Alcohol Company was the general contractor, and the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation acted merely as agent for the Publicker Alcohol Company" has removed any doubt which may arise from contradictory and equivocal language used in the contract regarding the true relationship of the parties.

There is no averment that any of the parties have rejected the provisions of Article III of the Workmen's Compensation Act. That article is, therefore, applicable to the employer of the decedent and by virtue of Section 302(b) of the said Act of 1915, as amended by the Act of 1939, P.L. 520, 77 P.S. 462, becomes binding upon a statutory employer if one exists.

Determination of the existence of the statutory employer-employee relationship between appellee and the decedent depends upon a proper construction of the terms of the contract between Hull and appellee. "Courts will not be controlled by the nomenclature the parties apply to their relationship" Kelter, Tr., v. American Bankers Finance...