Eisel v. US SLICING MACH. CO., INC.
This text of 412 A.2d 138 (Eisel v. US SLICING MACH. CO., INC.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinions
OPINION OF THE COURT
Gary Eisel filed a complaint in trespass against U. S. Slicing Machine Company, Inc., and Berkel, Inc. alleging that while in the course and scope of his employment with East Carson Packing Company (employer) he sustained serious personal injuries when he slipped and fell against a meat slicer manufactured by the defendants and sold by them to his employer. Berkel, Inc. filed a complaint to join the employer as additional defendant and the employer filed preliminary objections asserting that Section 303(b) of the Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1974, P.L. 782, No. 263, § 6, 77 P.S. § 481(b) (Supp. 1979) barred such joinder. Berkel, Inc. filed a reply to the preliminary objections, claiming that Section 303(b) is unconstitutional. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustained employer’s preliminary objections, and Berkel, Inc. appealed. The Superior Court (sitting as a panel of three judges) affirmed, - Pa.Super. -, 407 A.2d 36 (1979), relying on its decision in Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 262 Pa.Super. 417, 396 A.2d 1241 (1978). We granted allocatur and now affirm for the reasons set forth in our opinion filed this day in Tsarnas, supra, 488 Pa. 513, 412 A.2d 1094 (1980).
Order affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
412 A.2d 138, 488 Pa. 192, 1980 Pa. LEXIS 554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eisel-v-us-slicing-mach-co-inc-pa-1980.