Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son

172 A. 189, 113 Pa. Super. 108, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117

CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 6, 1934

DocketAppeal 40

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 172 A. 189 (Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Quick v. E. B. Kintner & Son, 172 A. 189, 113 Pa. Super. 108, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117 (Pa. Ct. App. 1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

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 hoard and sustained by the court below.

The facts are very similar to, and the legal questions *110 involved are the same as in Fedak v. Dzialdowski, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 104, 172 A. 187, in which ease we have handed down an opinion this day. Our disposition of that ease 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. Superior Ct. 347; 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 engaged in the regular course of his employer’s business. In the last case cited, the claimant was a regular employee of the defendant. These authorities, therefore, are dissimilar in important features to the case at bar and not decisive of the question before us.

Judgment is reversed and now entered for defendants.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Opinion by

Baldrige, J.,

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 hoard and sustained by the court below.

The facts are very similar to, and the legal questions *110 involved are the same as in Fedak v. Dzialdowski, 113 Pa. Superior Ct. 104, 172 A. 187, in which ease we have handed down an opinion this day. Our disposition of that ease 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. Superior Ct. 347; 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 engaged in the regular course of his employer’s business. In the last case cited, the claimant was a regular employee of the defendant. These authorities, therefore, are dissimilar in important features to the case at bar and not decisive of the question before us.

Judgment is reversed and now entered for defendants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A. 189, 113 Pa. Super. 108, 1934 Pa. Super. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/quick-v-e-b-kintner-son-pasuperct-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack