Eberle v. Union Dental Co.

• Decision Date: 28 June 1957
• Citation: 390 Pa. 112,134 A.2d 559
• Parties: John EBERLE, Executor under the Will of Mary Eberle, Deceased, wife of John J. Eberle, Claimant, Substituted Claimant, Appellant, v. UNION DENTAL COMPANY and American Employers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 559

134 A.2d 559

390 Pa. 112

John EBERLE, Executor under the Will of Mary Eberle Deceased, wife of John J. Eberle, Claimant Substituted Claimant, Appellant, v. UNION DENTAL COMPANY and American Employers Insurance Company, Insurance Carrier.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

June 28, 1957.

Petition for Rehearing Dismissed Sept. 27, 1957.

Joseph G. Feldman, Stephen Marc Feldman, Edward J. Marcantonio, Feldman & Feldman, Philadelphia, for appellant.

Peter P. Lieber, 3rd, John J. McDevitt, 3rd, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before CHARLES ALVIN JONES, C. J., and BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, BENJAMIN R. JONES and COHEN, JJ.

BELL, Justice.

Eberle applied for Workmen's Compensation, averring that he 'was leaving the premises of his employer at about 5:35 p. m. on June 17, 1952' and 'slipped on a banana peel' and fractured his pelvis. He subsequently died, as did his widow, and the present claim is being made by his son and heir for Workmen's Compensation for the period from the date of his injury, namely, June 17, 1952, until his death on September 12, 1955.

The pertinent facts are briefly as follows:

Eberle, a man then seventy years of age, was employed by Union Dental Instrument Manufacturing Company as a bench hand. The Dental Company was one of a number of tenants in a building at 32nd and Arch Streets, Philadelphia. Claimant's place of employment was on the third floor of the building. On the day of the accident he had completed his day's work, left the third floor, walked down to the street, walked out of the building through an exit door on the 32nd Street side of the building and walked south on the public sidewalk on 32nd Street to go to his home. Eberle slipped and fell on a driveway which crossed the public sidewalk and led to a loading door of the building which was used by the Union Dental Company. The 'driveway' in question is a brick paved section of the public sidewalk on the weat side of 32nd Street. The loading door abutting this portion of the sidewalk was marked with a sign:

'Union Dental Company

'Dascher Manufacturing Company

'Shipping and Receiving'

The lease by the owners of the building to Union Dental Company provides:

'All covenants and agreements herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding, it is understood and agreed that an area approximately twelve feet by thirty feet in the rear portion of the demised premises at the loading door is reserved by lessor for use as a common ¹ shipping area for the occupants of other portions of the building of which the demised premises is a part. Lessee agrees that lessor may at any time during the term of this lease or any renewal thereof, erect an enclosure or partition to divide said shipping area from the first floor of the said south building * * *'

Notwithstanding this lease, it was conceded that ever since 1949 Union Dental Company has had the exclusive use of the loading platform for access to the area on the first floor which it occupied under its lease.

This case is governed by Article III, Sec. 301 of the Act of June 2, 1915, ² as amended:

'* * * The term 'injury by an accident in the course of his employment,' * * * shall include all other injuries sustained while the employe is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether upon the employer's premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer's business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employe, who, though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer's business or affairs are being carried on, the employe's presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.'

There is no contention in this case that the injury was caused by an accident in the course of his employment or that Eberle was engaged in furthering his employer's business at the time of the accident; on the contrary, he had finished his work and was headed home.

The Referee and the Workmen's Commpensation Board and the Court of Common Pleas found for the plaintiff. The Superior Court in Eberle v. Union Dental Company, 182 Pa.Super. 519, 128 A.2d 136, reversed. Judge Hirt found as a matter of law that claimant's injury occurred on the premises of defendant and in a very able opinion said (182 Pa.Super. at pages 522-523, 128 A.2d at page 169):

'The difficulty confronting claimant in this appeal however is that his presence on the driveway was not 'required by the nature of his employment.' Claimant's use of the stairway in the building in going to his place of work and in leaving the building at the end of the day were required by his assignment to a bench on the third floor for the performance of his duties. * * * when claimant stepped to the cement sidewalk at the foot of the stairs, as he left the building, his employment for the day terminated. On reaching the sidewalk claimant turned south to his right, but not because of anything further required of him 'by the nature of his employment'. He headed south 'to get the el'. When he stepped on to the brick driveway the reciprocal obligations of claimant and the employer, each to the other, had been satisfied for the day. When injured, claimant was no more than a member of the public using the sidewalk as a pedestrian--the purpose for which this part of the street had been dedicated for public use. He might have turned to his left on leaving the building instead of to his right. His employer was not interested in the route selected by him over public streets or sidewalks on his way home after his work for the day was fully ended; there was nothing in the nature of his employment which required him to walk upon the driveway.'

Claimant's injury did not occur from an accident in the course of his employment, and it is equally obvious that he was not actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer. We need not decide whether claimant was injured upon the premises which were under the control of the employer and other cotenants (cf. Bruder v. Philadelphia, 302 Pa. 378, 158 A. 725) or upon which the employer's business was being carried on, because we are convined that the claimant has not brought himself within the additional requirement and condition precedent of this statute, namely, that his presence on this driveway was required by the nature of his employment. As the Court said in Lints v. Delaware Ribbon Manufacturers, 173 Pa.Super. 540, 544, 98 A.2d 643, 645:

'It is well established that in the absence of special circumstances an accidental injury in going to work or returning is not compensable.'

Judgment affirmed.

MUSMANNO, J., files a dissenting opinion, in which COHEN, J., joins.

MUSMANNO, Justice (dissenting).

On June 17, 1952, John J. Eberle, 70 years of age, employed by the Union Dental Company on the third floor of a four-story building in Philadelphia, rose from his work bench at 5:30 p. m., descended the steps to the street on which the building abutted, turned to his right on the sidewalk, heading for the elevated railway which was to take him home, travelled 15 feet on the sidewalk to a brick driveway under the control of his employer, and at this point fell by slipping on a banana peel, sustaining serious injuries. He made claim for Workmen's Compensation, which was allowed by the Referee, affirmed by the Workmen's Compensation Board, affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas, disallowed by the Superior Court, and disallowed by the Majority of this Court.

It is admitted by the Majority that Eberle was injured on the premises of the defendant company, but it is asserted that when he reached the foot of the stairway his employment for the day had terminated and, therefore, his accident did not occur within the course of his employment. It has frequently been stated that the Workmen's Compensation Act is to receive a liberal construction. ¹ If the decision in this case constitutes liberality, then it must be assumed that the maximum width of this Court's liberality is 14 feet 11 inches. Eberle was only 15 feet away from the point where compensation would unquestionably have attached, had he fallen there.

It is not contested that if the unknown banana eater had dropped the skin of the banana at the foot of the stairs and it had thrown Eberle at that point, the resulting accident would have fallen within the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Thus, the liberal construction in this case covers a parabola of no greater span than the distance one can cast a banana peel.

I do not believe that the Majority's decision can be regarded as a liberal construction of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I believe, on the contrary, that it represents a very narrow construction of that Act and is in opposition to many precedents which would authorize compensation in the set of facts which obtain here.

The real legal issue in this case, since it is admitted the accident happened on the employer's premises, is:...