Superior Court Addresses Applicability of Immunity Afforded To Third Party Defendants In Work Injury Cases

In the case of Brown v. Gaydos, No. 1132 WDA 2021 (Pa. Super. Dec. 7, 2023 en banc) (Op. by McCaffery, J.)(Stabile, J., Dissenting), the Pennsylvania Superior Court addressed issues regarding whether or not a Defendant was statutorily immune from liability under Pennsylvania’s Workers’ Compensation Act as the Plaintiff’s employer or co-employee under the facts presented.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff sued the Defendant individual for injuries that the Plaintiff sustained while operating a skid loader that the Defendant owned.

At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff was an employee of a company which the Defendant partly owned.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff had previously made a successful claim for workers’ compensation from the company that both men worked for at the time of the incident. The Plaintiff then filed a civil lawsuit alleging that the individual Defendant failed to properly maintain the skid loader or train the Plaintiff on how to use the device.

The Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment alleging that he was immune to the personal injury lawsuit under the Workers’ Compensation Act because he was the Plaintiff’s co-employee at the same company.

The court noted that, under the Workers’ Compensation Act, employees who received workers’ compensation benefit generally may not sue their employers or co-employees for work-related injuries. Relative to protections afforded to co-employees, a co-employee may secure immunity for negligent actions that caused a Plaintiff’s injuries while the co-employee and the Plaintiff were “in the same employ.”

In this case, the Plaintiff argued that he was suing the Defendant in his capacity as the owner of the skid loader, not as a co-employee and, therefore, the Defendant was not immune from suit.

The majority of the Superior Court ruled in this matter that there were genuine issues of material facts regarding the ownership and the use of the skid loader. The majority ruled that the Plaintiff’s claim with respect to the co-employee immunity issue hinged on whether or not the Plaintiff had been working in the course of his duties as an employee of the employer company at the time of the accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.  Judge Stabile's Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.


Source: Article - “Workers’ Comp Immunity May Not Shield Construction Company Owner From Job Site Injury Suit, Appeals Court Rules” by Aleza Furman of Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 8, 2023).

Source of image:  Photo by Silvia Brazzoduro on www.unsplash.com.

Summary Judgment Granted for Defendant Entity Relative to Negligent Acts by Former Employee of the Defendant

In the case of Doe v. Hand & Stone Franchise Corp., Aug. Term 2019, No. 04964 (C.P. Phila. Co. Sept. 7, 2022 Foglietta, J.), the trial court issued a Rule 1925 Opinion recommending that the Superior Court affirm its Order granting the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment in a case involving alleged sexual assaults by an employee of the franchise.

According to the Opinion, the allegation was that the employee allegedly assaulted three (3) Jane Doe Plaintiffs on separate occasions at his own personal massage business. The court noted that there was no evidence that the alleged assaults occurred at any Hand & Stone franchise. It was also noted that the alleged assailant was not employed by Hand & Stone when the assaults allegedly occurred.

The Defendant moved for summary judgment after finding that Defendants’ general duty of care could not be extended to find that the Defendant's alleged failure to report that a former employee was an alleged sexual predator to the authorities because there was no special relationship between the employer and the Plaintiffs, who were allegedly the predator’s future alleged victims.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Jan. 3, 2023).

Superior Court Rules That Employers Need Not Notify Employees of Rejection of UIM Coverage Under Employer's Policy (Non-Precedential)

In the non-precedential decision by the Pennsylvania Superior Court in the case of Derr v. National Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford, No. 1340 EDA 2019 (Pa.Super. Feb. 6, 2020 Nichols, J., Murray, J., and Colins, J.)(Op. by Colins, J.), the appellate court rejected a claim that public policy interests requires notification to all employees regarding an employer's rejection of UIM coverage be valid under the Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law.

Anyone wishing to review this non-precedential decision may click this LINK.

I send thanks to Attorney Matthew D. Vodzak of the Philadelphia law firm of Fowler, Hirtzel, McNulty & Spaulding, LLC, for bringing this case to my attention.

Employer Liability for Data Breach Reviewed by Pennsylvania Supreme Court

In the case of Dittman v. UPMC, No. 43 WAP 2017 (Pa. Nov. 21, 2018), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court addressed the duty of an employer to safeguard sensitive personal information of employees. 

The court ruled that an employer has a legal duty to use reasonable care to safeguard an employee’s sensitive personal information stored by the employer on internet/accessible computer systems.  

The court additionally noted that recovery in negligence for these types of purely pecuniary damages raised in this type of case are permitted under the economic loss plan since the recovery asserted is based upon an application of an existing duty to a novel factual scenario as opposed to imposing a new affirmative duty requiring consideration of other factors under Pennsylvania law.  

Anyone wishing to review a copy of the Majority Opinion written by Justice Baer may click this LINK.  Chief Justice Saylor's Concurring and Dissenting Opinion can be viewed HERE.

Source:  “Court Summaries by Timothy L. Clawges,” Pennsylvania Bar News (Dec. 17, 2018)