Citation Numbers: 63 A.2d 345, 361 Pa. 166
Judges: OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE ALLEN M. STEARNE, January 11, 1949:
Filed Date: 9/28/1948
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
Chester J. Butrin and Harold A. Butrin, appellants, were, on October 27, 1939, employed by Manion Steel Barrel Company, appellee, as laborers and had been so employed for two and one-half months prior thereto. They were regularly employed 40 hours per week from 3:00 P.M. to 11:00 P.M. each working day, and their wages were calculated at 44 cents per hour. Each punched a time clock upon reporting for and quitting work, the hours for which they were paid being those shown by the time card. Neither appellant rendered any services to appellee, outside the, plant. Transportation was never furnished, nor had there ever been any agreement to furnish transportation, from the date of their employment to October 27, 1939. Appellants either walked or used a bus to go to and return from appellee's *Page 172 plant. They never agreed to hold themselves in readiness to report for work at any time other than their regularly scheduled hours of employment.
On October 27, 1939, about 12:00 noon, Thomas Struss, another laborer at appellee's plant, driving a truck owned by appellee company, arrived at appellants' home and told them they were to report to work immediately as it was necessary for them to assist appellee company to fill a special order. He waited for appellants who climbed into the rear of the truck. Struss was driving toward appellee's plant when the truck skidded and crashed into a concrete wall along the side of the highway. Appellants were thrown from the truck sustaining injuries for which they instituted this action in trespass against Manion Steel Barrel Company and Thomas Struss. At a trial of the case the court refused appellee company's motion for a compulsory nonsuit and its motion for a directed verdict. A jury returned verdicts against appellees in favor of Chester J. Butrin in amount of $8,000 and in favor of Harold A. Butrin in amount of $200. Thereafter a motion for judgment non obstante veredicto was granted.
A majority of this Court, in affirming the judgment entered below, concludes as a matter of law that appellants were engaged in the furtherance of their employer's business at the time of the accident. The evidence, examined in the light of prior decisions of this Court, does not justify such a conclusion.
An employer is not required to compensate an employee for injuries arising out of an accident occurring off of the employer's premises while the employee is going to or returning from work: Morucci v. Susquehanna Collieries Co.,
The testimony here adduced amply warrants the following findings of fact: Appellants and appellee company never entered into any express contract pursuant to which the company undertook, as part consideration of the employer-employee relationship, to provide transportation to and from the place of employment; appellants had regular hours of employment and were paid according to their time card record; their usual method of going to and returning from work was by walking or by bus; they never in any way agreed to hold themselves in readiness to report for special work; the company did not intend to pay, nor did it pay, for time consumed while appellants were being transported to work; on October 27, 1939, an authorized employee of appellee company, a foreman, directed another employee of the company to take a truck of the company to to the homes of appellants who were fellow workmen and bring them to the factory to work upon this special order at a time before regular working hours; and, the use of the truck was, at most, a convenience furnished to appellants on this occasion.
On the basis of the undisputed evidence in the case, the learned court below erred in holding as a matter of law that appellants were acting in the course of their employment at the time they were injured. Accordingly, *Page 175 their claims did not come within the purview of the workmen's compensation law and the question of the appellees' liability on the ground of negligence was therefore properly a matter for the jury.
I would reverse the judgment and remand the record for appropriate disposition by the court below of appellee's motion for a new trial.
Mr. Justice HORACE, STERN and Mr. Justice JONES join in this dissent.
Campagna v. Ziskind , 287 Pa. 403 ( 1926 )
Cymbor v. Binder Coal Co. , 285 Pa. 440 ( 1926 )
Kelling v. Froemming Bros. , 287 Pa. 471 ( 1926 )
Cronin v. American Oil Co. , 298 Pa. 336 ( 1929 )
Morucci v. Susquehanna Col. Co. , 297 Pa. 508 ( 1929 )
Haddock v. Edgewater Steel Co. , 263 Pa. 120 ( 1919 )
Logan v. Pot Ridge Coal Co. , 79 Pa. Super. 421 ( 1922 )
Krapf v. Arthur , 95 Pa. Super. 468 ( 1928 )
Bock v. Reading , 120 Pa. Super. 468 ( 1935 )
Dunn v. Trego , 279 Pa. 518 ( 1924 )
Knorr v. Central Railroad , 268 Pa. 172 ( 1920 )
Stahl v. Watson Coal Co. , 268 Pa. 452 ( 1920 )
Strohl v. Eastern Pennsylvania Railways Co. , 270 Pa. 132 ( 1921 )
Callihan v. Montgomery , 272 Pa. 56 ( 1922 )
Nilsson v. Nepi Brothers (Et Al.) , 138 Pa. Super. 107 ( 1939 )
Garratt v. McCrady Const. Co. , 114 Pa. Super. 579 ( 1934 )
Lillian Haley v. City of Phila. , 107 Pa. Super. 405 ( 1932 )