In Greenya v. Gordon, 70 Dauph. 1, it was held that a member of a partnership, even though he receives wages for services performed is not an employee within the Workmen's Compensation Act, and Judge SOHN, speaking for that court said at page 3: "A person cannot be both an employer and an employe".Summary of this case from Herman v. Kandrat Coal Co.
May 29, 1957.
June 28, 1957.
Employer and employe — Employe injured in course of employment — Injury caused by employer — Liability of employer — Scope — Lack of common-law liability.
An employe of a partnership who is injured in the course of his employment by the negligence of one of the partners and who recovers workmen's compensation for his injuries cannot maintain an action in trespass against the partner who injured him.
Before JONES, C. J., BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, ARNOLD, JONES and COHEN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 3, May T., 1957, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Jan. T., 1955, No. 758, in case of George Vincent Greenya, Jr. v. Herman Gordon. Judgment affirmed.
Proceeding upon motion of defendant for judgment on the pleadings in action of trespass for personal injuries after opening of judgment taken by default.
Order entered granting judgment for defendant, opinion by SOHN, J. Plaintiff appealed.
John J. Krafsig, Jr., for appellant.
Michael T. Morris, with him John H. Bream, for appellee.
The plaintiff, an employee of a partnership of which the defendant was a member, sued the latter individually in trespass for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident while the defendant was driving the plaintiff and himself back to their place of employment from a painting job on which they both had been working. The plaintiff received from his employers workmen's compensation for his injuries and signed a final settlement receipt. All of these facts appear by the pleadings and are confirmed by the plaintiff's admissions of record. The learned court below gave judgment on the pleadings for the defendant; and the plaintiff appealed.
The plaintiff's injuries for which he claimed in trespass were sustained in the course of his employment and were therefore compensable by his employers under the Workmen's Compensation Law. He was not entitled, in addition, to a common-law action for damages against the defendant employer individually. So long as the plaintiff was an employee of the defendant partnership and was injured in the course of his employment, it is immaterial that the injury was due to the alleged negligence of one of his employers.
The opinion of Judge SOHN for the court below disposed of the claim in trespass against the individual partner so cogently and so adequately that we need add nothing futher in justification of the judgment.