Kim v. Michigan Ladder Company

• Decision Date: 10 September 1962
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 18253.
• Citation: 208 F. Supp. 298
• Parties: George F. KIM, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN LADDER COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE FLOORS, INC., Third-Party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

208 F. Supp. 298

George F. KIM, Plaintiff, v. MICHIGAN LADDER COMPANY, a corporation, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. KEYSTONE FLOORS, INC., Third-Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 18253.

United States District Court W. D. Pennsylvania.

September 10, 1962.

Theodore Tracy, of Stokes, Lurie & Tracy, Pittsburgh, Pa., for plaintiff.

Robert S. Grigsby, of Pringle, Bredin & Martin, Pittsburgh, Pa., for defendant and third-party plaintiff.

David H. Trushel, of Dickie, McCamey, Chilcote & Robinson, Pittsburgh, Pa., for third-party defendant.

MARSH, District Judge.

At the trial of this diversity action, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff, George F. Kim, and against the defendant, Michigan Ladder Company (Michigan), in the sum of $10,000.00, and a verdict in favor of Michigan as third-party plaintiff and against Keystone Floors, Inc. (Keystone), Kim's employer and the third-party defendant, for contribution to the extent allowed by law. Judgments were entered on the verdicts. Michigan paid Kim $9,975.00, and the judgment against it was satisfied.¹ Michigan now moves the court to alter and amend the judgment for contribution in its favor against Keystone to a sum certain which it contends in its proposed findings, as corrected, should be $2,490.82, plus one-half the costs. We think the motion should be granted.

From the evidence adduced at trial and at the hearing on the motion, the court makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. This action was brought on October 23, 1959, by Kim against Michigan to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in an accident which occurred on January 15, 1959, on the premises of Keystone, while he was engaged in the performance of his duties as an employee of Keystone. At the time of the trial, Kim was 45 years old.

2. On July 27, 1960, Michigan as third-party plaintiff filed a complaint against Keystone as third-party defendant alleging that Keystone's negligence was the cause of plaintiff's damages, and demanding "judgment against third-party defendant, Keystone Floors, Inc., for all sums that may be adjudged against defendant, The Michigan Ladder Company, in favor of plaintiff, George F. Kim."

3. At the conclusion of the trial in this case, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $10,000.00 against the defendant, and returned a verdict in favor of Michigan as third-party plaintiff and against the third-party defendant for contribution to the extent allowed by law. Judgments were entered on the verdicts.

4. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff was satisfied when Michigan paid plaintiff the sum of $9,975.00 and the costs of the trial.

5. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff had been employed by Keystone on a fixed salary basis of $110.00 per week as a warehouse superintendent and salesman, and his job required him to lift and move merchandise, to supervise eight other employees, to climb ladders, to unload trucks, to conduct inventories, all of which required eight to ten hours of work per day, much of which was conducted on his feet.

6. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff sustained a comminuted fracture of the os calcis of the right foot, and became afflicted with traumatic arthritis of the subastragular joint of his right foot which has been progressive in nature.

7. Immediately following the accident, the plaintiff did not work for a period of three days. On the fourth day after the accident, the plaintiff returned to work on crutches and continued to perform limited work at full salary until the end of April, 1959, at which time he was compelled to terminate his employment because he was physically unable to perform a substantial portion of the duties required of him.

8. As a result of the accident, the plaintiff has sustained a 50 per cent disability which continues to the present time. Cf. Cunningham v. Alex Guerrina & Sons, 188 Pa.Super. 288, 146 A.2d 318 (1958).

9. Because of the disability resulting from the accident, the plaintiff was unemployed for a period of 35 weeks from May 1, 1959, to January 1, 1960, during which time he contracted for occasional jobs involving the installation of carpet which he performed with the help of two other persons, and he received net income therefrom for that period of $600.00, averaging approximately $150.00 per quarter.

10. Because of the disability resulting from the accident, the plaintiff was unemployed for a period of 50 weeks from January 1, 1960, to December 15, 1960, during which time he contracted for occasional jobs of installing carpet which he performed with the help of two other persons, and he received net income therefrom for that period of $1,533.51.

11. From the date of the accident to May 1, 1959, the plaintiff did not sustain any loss of earnings.

12. From May 1, 1959 to December 31, 1959, the plaintiff's earning power was $17.14 per week ($600.00 ÷ 35 weeks = $17.14 his average weekly wage).

13. Applying the statutory formula for the year 1959 (66 2/3 % × ($110.00 - $17.14) × 35 weeks), plaintiff's loss of earning power exceeds the statutory maximum of $27.50 per week.² On the basis of 35 weeks at $27.50 per week, the employer would have been liable to pay compensation under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act to the extent of $962.50 for the year 1959.

14. From January 1, 1960 to December 15, 1960, the plaintiff's earning power was $30.67 per week ($1,533.51 ÷ 50 weeks = $30.67 his average weekly wage).

15. Applying the statutory formula for the year 1960 (66 2/3 % × ($110.00 - $30.67) × 50 weeks), plaintiff's loss of earning power exceeds the statutory maximum. On the basis of $27.50 per week, the employer would have been liable to pay compensation under the law to the extent of $1,375.00 for the year 1960.

16. During the six-month interval following the accident of January 15, 1959, Dr. Roy S. Temeles treated the plaintiff for his injury and his bill amounted to $130.00, and Dr. M. A. Sherman treated the plaintiff for his injury and his bill for that period amounted to $23.32.

17. On December 15, 1960, plaintiff was employed by Better Built Supply Company at the salary of $500.00 per month. In March, 1961, his salary was reduced to $400.00 per month. In September, 1961, plaintiff was "left out". The reduction in wages and the dismissal resulted from "general business conditions" rather than from any disability due to the injury.

18. The total extent to which Keystone is liable under the Pennsylvania compensation law is $2,490.82.³

19. Neither the plaintiff-employee nor Keystone, the employer, ever filed a petition for workmen's compensation because of the injury sustained by plaintiff on January 15, 1959, and no agreement for compensation was ever entered into between the plaintiff and Keystone.

DISCUSSION

Keystone, the employer, was brought upon the record as a third-party defendant more than 18 months after the accident of January 15, 1959. Since the plaintiff-employee failed to pursue his right to workmen's compensation within the 16-month period specified by the statute of limitations⁴ and is forever barred from making any such claim, Keystone contends that it is not liable to the employee under the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act in any amount and thus is not liable to contribute any amount to Michigan, the third-party plaintiff, because of the judgment which Michigan paid to plaintiff. We do not agree.

By virtue of the jury's verdict Keystone and Michigan are joint tortfeasors, and Keystone, as plaintiff's employer, is liable to contribute to Michigan to the extent allowed by law. However, this obligation is limited by the benefits specified by the Workmen's Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. Brown v. Dickey, 397 Pa. 454, 155 A.2d 836 (1959); Maio v. Fahs, 339 Pa. 180, 14 A.2d 105 (1940); Stark v. Posh Construction Company, 192 Pa.Super. 409, 162 A.2d 9 (1960).

With respect to the statute of limitations, the general rules are stated as follows: "The fact that the statute of limitations will bar the plaintiff from a direct recovery against the additional defendant can have no effect on the defendant's right to enforce his claim of contribution or indemnity." (Emphasis supplied.) Goodrich-Amram, Rules of Civil Procedure, vol. 3, § 2252(a) (9), p. 38.

"On general principles a defendant cannot, of course, maintain his impleader if the statute of limitations has run on the claim which he has against the third party. It should be recognized, however, that the applicable statute is not that which governs the plaintiff's claim against the defendant. If defendant has a claim over against the third-party defendant—such as a claim for indemnity, contribution, etc.— the statute usually will not commence to run against the defendant (third-party plaintiff) and in favor of the third-party defendant until judgment has been entered against the defendant,⁵ or the defendant has paid the judgment.⁶ Thus a defendant may implead a third party to enforce against him a right of contribution, even though the statute may have run on any claim by plaintiff directly against the third party." (Emphasis and footnotes supplied.) Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., vol. 3, ¶ 14.09, pp. 421-422.

The foregoing appears to be the law of Pennsylvania, although we have not found any case which specifically involves the statute of limitations contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act.⁷

We recognize that the statute of limitations in the Workmen's Compensation Act is not an ordinary statute of limitations, but a "statute of repose", and when the time has elapsed, as here, it extinguishes "not only the remedy, but the right". Overmiller v. D. E. Horn & Co., 191 Pa.Super. 562, 566-567, 159 A.2d 245, 247 (1960); Ratto v. Pennsylvania Coal Co., 102 Pa.Super. 242, 156 A. 749 (1931). But liability for contribution is exclusively a matter between the third-party plaintiff, Michigan, and the third-party defendant, Keystone, and is not...