Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son
| Decision Date | 23 April 1934 |
| Docket Number | 40-1934 |
| Parties | Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son et al., Appellants |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued March 6, 1934
Appeal by defendants from decree of C. P., Pike County, October T. 1933, No. 2, in the case of George R. Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son, American Casualty Co., insurance carrier.
Appeal from award of compensation by the Workmen's Compensation Board. Before Shull, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court dismissed the appeal and entered judgment for the claimant. Defendants appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the entry of the judgment.
Reversed.
Russell L. Mervine, and with him John M. Kelly, for appellant.
J Harry Morosini, for appellee.
Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.
The defendants are engaged in the butcher business. They decided to enlarge their storeroom and to construct, for renting purposes, two apartments on the second floor. They employed the claimant as a carpenter, who worked on the improvements from March 6th until June 1, 1932, when he was injured. The claimant filed his petition for compensation. The defendants denied liability on the ground that claimant's work was casual and not in the regular course of their business. The referee awarded compensation and his action was approved by the board and sustained by the court below.
The facts are very similar to, and the legal questions involved are the same as in Fedak v. Dzialdowski, 113 Pa.Super. 104, 172 A. 187, in which case we have handed down an opinion this day. Our disposition of that case controls this proceeding and makes a further elaboration, other than to refer briefly to cases cited by appellee, unnecessary.
The appellee relies upon Sgattone v. Mulholland & Gotwals Inc. et al., 290 Pa. 341, 138 A. 855; Fedak v. Dzialdowski, as reported in 101 Pa.Super. 346; Hauger v. Walker Co. et al., 277 Pa. 506, 121 A. 200; and Dunlap v. Paradise Camp et al., 305 Pa. 516, 158 A. 265. In the first case, the claimant was a regular employee of DiSandro & Son, sewer contractors, loaned to the defendants who were engaged in developing land and constructing houses, which was their usual business. The Fedak case, as we have already shown, affords no support for the appellee's contention. In the Hauger case, it appears that the claimant was injured while...
To continue reading
Request your trial