Strunk v. Keller
| Decision Date | 05 March 1921 |
| Docket Number | 275-1920 |
| Citation | 75 Pa.Super. 462 |
| Parties | Strunk v. Keller, Appellant |
| Court | Pennsylvania Superior Court |
Argued October 26, 1920
Appeal by defendant, from judgment of C.P. Huntingdon County-1920 No. 215, affirming the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board in the case of Mary Strunk v. Charles Keller.
Appeal from Workmen's Compensation Board. Before Bailey, P. J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court affirmed the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board and judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff for $ 700. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the decree of the court.
L. H Beers, for appellant.
W. M Henderson, for appellee.
Before Orlady, P. J., Porter, Henderson, Head, Trexler, Keller and Linn, JJ.
The defendant appealed from the judgment of the court of common pleas affirming the decision of the Workmen's Compensation Board, which sustained the referee's award of compensation in favor of plaintiff for the death of her son, John Wallace Strunk.
The referee found that said John Wallace Strunk was killed on March 19, 1919, while hauling logs in the employ of the defendant, who had a written contract to do the logging in connection with a lumber operation of one Alexander; and that Alexander had nothing whatever to do with the employment nor the payment of the men employed by the defendant in the execution of the work under said contract. Evidence produced at the hearing sustained the findings.
The defendant was an independent contractor, not a subcontractor, as to the logging, and the provisions of sections 203 and 302, as defined in section 105, of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915 (June 2, 1915, P. L. 736), did not operate so as to relieve him of liability for the injury.
Nor can he sustain his claim to exemption from liability on the ground he was a farmer. The Act of June 3, 1915, P. L. 777, provides that the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915 shall not affect any person who, at the time of injury, is engaged in domestic service or agriculture. When Strunk was killed he was not engaged in agriculture. The logging contract entered into by the defendant was not a part of his farming operations. If a farmer chooses to engage also in outside industrial operations his employees in such outside transactions are within the protection of the Workmen's Compensation Act.
The judgment is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McGrath v. Pennsylvania Sugar Co.
... ... certainly was not a part of its regular or usual business: ... Hogan v. Fruit Co., 266 Pa. 266; Strunk v ... Keller, 75 Pa.Super. 462; Simonton v. Morton, 275 Pa ... In the ... case at bar, it is apparent that either or both of the acts ... ...
-
Patton v. Worthington Assocs., Inc.
...employer immunity with respect to an independent contractor. See, e.g., Robson v. Martin, 291 Pa. 426, 140 A. 339 (1928); Strunk v. Keller, 75 Pa.Super. 462 (1921). See also Rolick v. Collins Pine Co., 925 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1991) (holding that an independent contractor could not be a statuto......
-
Shamblin v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-12-089
...v. Belcher Roofing Corp., 704 A.2d 642, 645 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1997) (citing Robson v. Martin, 140 A. 339 (Pa. 1928); Strunk v. Keller, 75 Pa. Super. 462 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1921)). As a result, "in order to satisfy the McDonald test, a master-servant relationship must exist. Further, because an i......
-
Lascio v. Belcher Roofing Corp.
...employer immunity with respect to an independent contractor. See, e.g., Robson v. Martin, 291 Pa. 426, 140 A. 339 (1928); Strunk v. Keller, 75 Pa.Super. 462 (1921). See also Rolick v. Collins Pine Co., 925 F.2d 661 (3d Cir.1991) (holding that an independent contractor could not be a statuto......