From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Menendes v. Dravo Construction Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 14, 1933
167 A. 423 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)

Opinion

April 17, 1933.

July 14, 1933.

Workmen's compensation — Employee — Injury — Gross negligence of employee.

An employee who while at work loading bags of cement on a belt conveyor, which carried them from the lower deck of a barge to the upper deck, negligently used the conveyor as a sort of escalator to take himself to the upper deck of the barge to get a drink of water, and was injured, is entitled to workmen's compensation.

An employee is not deprived of compensation for an injury received in the course of his employment merely because the injury was the result of his own negligence.

Appeal No. 201, April T., 1933, by defendants from judgment of C.P., Westmoreland County, August T., 1932, No. 924, in the case of Antonio Menendes v. Dravo Construction Company and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company.

Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD, PARKER and JAMES, JJ. Affirmed.

Appeal from an award of compensation to claimant by Workmen's Compensation Board. Before DOM, J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.

The court sustained the award and dismissed the appeal. Defendants appealed.

Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.

John H. Sorg, and with him Mitinger Mitinger, for appellants.

No appearance and no printed brief for appellee.


Argued April 17, 1933.


The claimant employe in this case was very negligent in attempting to use the belt conveyor at which he was working, loading sacks of cement to be transported thereon from the lower deck to the upper deck of the barge, as a means of conveyance for himself — a sort of rude escalator — in going from the lower to the upper deck for a drink of water, while so at work. But negligence — even gross negligence — does not deprive a workman of compensation for injury received from an accident while in the course of his employment: Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, Sec. 301, p. 738; Gurski v. Susquehanna Coal Co., 262 Pa. 1, 3, 104 A. 801; Dzikowska v. Superior Steel Co., 259 Pa. 578, 583, 103 A. 351.

The circumstances of the case do not warrant a finding that he had abandoned his employment or was doing, at the time of the accident and its resultant injury, anything more than taking a negligent short cut upstairs for the purpose of getting a drink of water, intending to return to his work as soon as he had quenched his thirst.

It is therefore distinguishable from the cases relied on by appellant, Shoffler v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co., 290 Pa. 480, 483, 139 A. 192; Dickey v. P. L.E.R. Co., 297 Pa. 172, 146 A. 543; Palla v. Glen Alden Coal Co., 105 Pa. Super. 96, 160 A. 157, and like cases; and is more akin to Dzikowska v. Superior Steel Co., supra; Blouss v. D.L. W.R. Co., 73 Pa. Super. 95; Waite v. Pittsburgh Limestone Co., 78 Pa. Super. 7; Siglin v. Armour Co., 261 Pa. 30, 103 A. 991, and similar cases.

No violation of statute, or even of the orders of the employer, is involved in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

Menendes v. Dravo Construction Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Jul 14, 1933
167 A. 423 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
Case details for

Menendes v. Dravo Construction Co.

Case Details

Full title:Menendes v. Dravo Construction Co. et al., Appellants

Court:Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Date published: Jul 14, 1933

Citations

167 A. 423 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1933)
167 A. 423

Citing Cases

Lupton v. Glenn's Oyster House

There was no showing made under the ordinance that Marge Hicklin was less than 16 years of age or that she…

Hall v. Carnegie Institute

When he met his death, Hall was on the premises of his employer during his regular hours of employment and at…