Document xOQQgXRNwzKRZ94aam9z5V5Q

\ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w VS* UNIROYAL, INC* CIVIL ACTION : : : NO* ORDE R AND NOW, to wit, this day of , 1980, the five-day notice requirements of Local Rule 36 are hereby waived in connection with the filing of the defendant's Motion to Dismiss. J. URL 12654 \ 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HAS5EY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w VS. UNIROYAL, INC CIVIL ACTION NO. MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b) FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM The defendant# Uniroyal, Inc., moves the Court as follows: 1. To dismiss the action because the Complaint fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. HEPBURN ROSS WILLCOX 6 PUTNAM ...___ _ _ Attorney for Defendant 2000 Two Penn Center Plaza Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 (215) LO 8-7500 URL 12655 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA HARRY R. HASSEY and CATHERINE HASSEY, h/w VS. UNIROYAL, INC. CIVIL ACTION : j : NO. MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF RULE 12(b) MOTION TO DISMISS HISTORY OF CASE: Plaintiff has filed a Complaint in Trespass and Assumpsit against defendant. Plaintiff has also filed a Rule 30(a) motion for permission to take plaintiff's deposition prior to the expira tion of 30 days from service, and a Motion to appoint plaintiff's counsel to make service. At this time, defendant's counsel, who has received copies of all documents, but has not and cannot accept service, is unaware of whether defendant has been served. Plaintiff's Complaint makes out a cause of action between employer and employee in paragraphs 4, 5, and It is unclear from the Complaint what injury there is to plaintiff, but the injury occurred during the course of his employment. (Paragraph 9) m QUESTION PRESENTEDs Does an employee have a cause of action in trespass in Penn sylvania against an employer for a work-related injury? ANSWER: No. ARGUMENT: Section 303 of the Workmen's Compensation Act (77 P.S. S481) clearly makes the Act the sole and exclusive remedy for an employee against an employer. (Copy of 303 attached hereto as Exhibit "A"). Since the Complaint pleads the employment relationship, the Act is a complete bar to this action in Pennsylvania. Hefferin v. Stempkowski, 247 Pa. Super. 366 (1977). While the Hefferin case really went a step further than needed in this case and barred a joinder of an employer as a third party, it is cited here because it is a leading case and fully discusses the legislative intent bar* ring actions against the employer. Judge Fogel of this Court held $303's exclusivity to be con stitutional in Albrecht V. Pneuco Mach. Co. v. Environmental Tetronlcs Corp., 448 F. Supp. 851 (1978), copy attached as Ex hibit "B". Under Erie v. Thompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S. Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (.1938), he applied $303 of the Workmen's Compensation Act to bar the joinder of an employer in the Albrecht case. Judge Fogel also cites Hadden v. Abbott Power Corp., Civil Action No. 76-3177 (.D. Pa. 1978, filed 4/4/78), a case which I did not find in the Federal Supplement. In argument, it is clear that S303 of the Compensation Act bars all actions by an employee or other against his employer. This action must be dismissed on that basis. Respectfully submitted, HEPBURN ROSS WILLCOX & PUTNAM SPENCER A. MANTHORPE Attorney for Defendant URL 12657 \ if \ 8S9Zn u n Section 303. (a) The liability of an employer under this act shall fee exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such em ployes, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death as defined in see* tion 301 (c) (1) and (2) or occupational disease as defined in section 108. t (b) In the event injury or death to an employe is caused by a third party, then such employe, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, and anyone otherwise entitled to receive damages by reason thereof, may bring their action at law against such third party, but the employer, his insurance carrier, their scrvants and agents, employes, representatives acting on their behalf or at their request shall not be liable to a third party for damages, con1 tribution, or indemnity in any action at law, or otherwise, unless lia bility for such damages, contributions or indemnity shall be expressly provided for in written contract entered into by the party alleged to be liable prior to the date of the occurrence which gave rise to the action. j | EXHIBIT "A" A t 5> Bn ALBRECHT and Stephanie Albrecht, h/w PNEUCO MACHINERY COMPANY and National Rubber Company Ltd. and Boise Crane Industries, lac. f. ENVIRONMENTAL TECTONICS COBP. Chr. A. No. 77-4142. United States District Court. E. D. Pennsylvania. May 1, lm Employee injured in the eourn of em ployment sued various third parties for al> leged negligent design and manufacture of brake presses and dies, strict liability, and breach of express end implied warranties, and two defendants filed third-party com plaint agninat plaintiffs employer. On mo tion of the employer for summary judg ment, the Distriet Court, Fogel, JH beM that provision of Pennsylvania Workman's Com pensation Act providing that, in injured em ployee's suit against third party, employer shall not be liable to third party for dam ages, contribution or indemnity except pur suant to written contract Is a valid extras* of the Commonwealth's police power end dees net deny third parties doe process or equal protection, aad thus operated to bar joinder of employer in action commenced against third parties. Motion granted. Constitutional Law *>81,248(4)* Ml Workmen's Compensation eW Frovisioa of Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act providing that, in in jured employee's suit against third party, employer not be liable to third party for. damages, contribution or indemnity ex cept pursuant to written contract is a valid exercise of the Commonwealth's police pow er end does not deny third parties due proc ess or equal protection. 77 P&Pa. 5 4810'/; U^.CA.Const Amend. 14 OPINION AND ORDER FOGEI* District Judge. L PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL my. TORT OF THE CASE la June, 1975, plaintiff Bruce Afentit was employed by Environmental Toetaeia Corporation, (Tectonics). During the course et his employment, whSe operating a brake press, a fie allegedly fell from the peas onto Us foot, enuring Sajurisa to Mm. On June 17, 1977, flu fib action against Ftoeuco Machinery Company, (Paeuco), National Rubber Company, T-m (National), aad Boise Crass Industrie, fan, (Boise), alleging 1) negligent design aad manufacture of brake prssiss and dim, 2) strict liability aad 3) branch of express aad Implied warranties of end fitness far a particular purpose. On August 10. 1977, defendants Pmm s and National filed a third party complaint against Albrecht's employer. Tectonic*, alleging that fie accident waa caused by fie negligence of Tectonics or Ms agents. Tectonics baa moved far summary judg ment baaed on Section 303 of the FsaasyL vaais Workmen's Compensation Act, 77 PA. $ 481(b), which provides: (b) fa fie event injury or death tn an employ* b caused by a third party, then such employe, Ms legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next of kin, aad anyone otherwise enti tled to motive damages by reason themof, may bring their action at law against such third party, but the employer, Ms insurance carrier, their aei vents sad agents, employes, representatives eeting on their behalf or at their request shall not be Cable to a third party for damage*, contribution, or indemnity in any action at law, or otherwise, unless liability far such damages, contributions or indemnity hull be exprwfedy provided for la a writ ten cuntract entered into by the party URL 12659 EXHIBIT "B" 1 ALBRECHT v, PNEUCO MACHINERY CO. CMt (tTt) 853 AlU'gvti U be liable prior to the dole of action commenced by an injured employee the occurrence which gave me to the against such third parly. arttoo. H DISCVSSIOS Defendants contend that thit section of the Workmen's Compensation Aet violates; (1) the dae process danse of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu tion. la that H terminates a pre-existing common lav right; and (2) equal protection principles, in that it eliminates a party's right to sue. Further, defendants contend that it is arbitral? and that no rational nexus exists between the Commonwealth's police power and the purpose of this section of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Because tbs constitutionality of a state statute has been questioned* we invited the Commonwealth to intervene at amicus eurf' ar: h did so by filing e brief, in accordance with our briefing schedule, on March 1, 197$. For the reasons which follow, we find that | 303 of the Workmen's Compen sation Act, 77 P.S. f 481(b), does not violate the due process or equal protection prov* rions of the Constitution, end therefore gnat Tectonics* motion for sumjnaty judg ment Defendants dted two Minnesota cases and one Florida ease in support of their tSKrthm of unconstitutionaKty of 77 PA I 481(b): Cariboo v. Smogerd, 298 Minn. 862.215 K.W.2d 615 (1974); Haney v. InternstionaJ Harvester Chmpaqy, 294 Minn. 873, 201 N.W2d 140 (1972); Suepen Engi neering end Construction Co. r. SpringLock Scaffolding Company, 910 So.2d 4 (FlLSup.Cl.1975). In each of thesa cases, the rsspective>ttstute was similar to tbs statute in this case; the enactments in question provided that an employer could not be held liable to a third party in an Both the Minnesota and Florida Supreme Courts found their respective statutes un constitutional; however, they did id on grounds not raised hero.1 We ero not per suaded by these eases, (which turned as noted, on the right sought to he vindicated or state constitutional issues), particolariy in view of the overall purpose underlying the Workmen's Compensation Aet, TT PA 11 et ssq.: speedy and effidant insolation of claims of employees injured In the per formance of their Jobe. Such a statutory scheme is a valid exercise of a state's police power. Duproe v. Barney, 198 FfcSupar. 881, 168 AAd 901 (I960). Therefore, start ing with the presumption of coastitationttity of the state statute in question, Lehwhausen v. Lakeehora Auto Arte Company, 410 UA. 856, 93 &CL 1001,85 UE12d 851 (1973), we examine the intent of the Legis lature in adopting | 808. The background of the enactment of | 80S Is perhaps boat summarised in Hefferin r. Rsqpbwiki 947 Pa-Super. 866, 872 AAd 869 (1977) to which then President Judge Watkins stated: The Nations) Commission an State Workmen's Compensation Laws into mitted its report to the Congram and the President in July, 1972. The report con tained 84 recommendations for the im provement of state workmen's wnpsnie tion laws, and of the 84 recommendations, 19 were deemed essential by the Commis sion. Recommendations R. 118 and R. 2.19 address immunity end exclusivity of employers from negligenco actions when an employee is impaired or dies bscauea of e work-related injury or diteeee. The Commission rocognized that Ha rscoamendations would result to tocroesod costs to employers and inducted the ox- t. The Minnesota cases turned on the abroga tion r a party** right to indemnity, net eeturb huciQR, which is in issue in this can. Pennsyl vania recognises a fight to indemnity if (here is a contract between the parties. Globe Indem nity Co. v. Airway. Inc. 450 T2d 472 Od Clr. 1972). The Florida case, as applied to the frets of that cast, held that FA. 1440.11 (1972) vtolattd the "access to the courts for redress et aaqr injury" provision of Article 1. I 21. Florida Constitution. URL 12660 i V99ZV^ 854 446 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT elusive liability of on employer as otw of Co. r. Psrt-Athatk SS. Carp, 8S0 UA Igi the 19 aaHhtia] recoinmendstioBs. 129,78 ACL 232,235,100 AEd. 133 (1956): a With tho Commisstoa report aa a bade* The obvious purpose of this pmfcion (round, the Pennsylvania Legislature ia the yean 1972 through 1974 undertook a massive overhaul of the State** Work men's Compensation Lav and Occupa tional Disease Law whieh, among other items, caused the average weekly pay ment to rise from $6040 per week to a present $187.00 per week. It was the pS UAC. 9 305] is to make the liability of an employer to contribute to its employee's compensation tbs mlnriii* liability ofouch mnpfegar to Its -- or to anyone Hainring under or through such employee, 00 moooant ofher iojtuy or death arising ant of that sirijiftijonnL (Emphasis ht original). intention of the Legislature to have the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Law comply with as many of the cmin tial recommendations of the Commission as possible. This eulmiaatod on Decem ber, 1974 with the enactment o/ SJ9L 1223; wherein tho intention of tho amend ments to Section 609 was to grant tho employer total immunity Mm third-par* ty actions. (Emphasis added) # Id. at 878-7L Although Hoffwin does not address the constitutional issues raised in Urn case, we are eonvincad that the legislative intent a* highlighted by the Pennsylvania Court sup ports our conclusion that protecting an em ployer, perhaps even a negligent employer, from third party defendant liability is but a small step from the avowed purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act of Insulating an employer from liability to the employee as. coscLvsioy Therefore, under ErioJL Cx t. Tbtn&dax 804 UA H 88 ACL IT, 88 LXd. Il2g (1938), we rnuaL sitting in diversity, follow the statutory and common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Since wo find 1808 of the Workman's Compensation Act, 77 PA 9 481 ia a vmBd exercisa of the Cemfnoaweelth'f police power, and thus onflawed constitutionally, wo bold that77 PA I 481(b) operates to tar joinder of as In jured employee's employer hi os action commenced by tht employe* against a third party. He/Terfe auprn; aao afco Hadden a. Abbott ftwar Ckp, Civil Action No. 193177 (ADJn.1978, filed April 4. M7R). Accordingly, third party defendant Thetonics' motion for summary Judgment la granted. An appropriate order will tana. for accidental injuries sustained is the course of the performance of the employee's job. Our conclusion that 77 PA f 481(b) is constitutional is further buttressed by the fact that the Pennsylvania Legislature adopted the language of the Longshore men's and Harbor Workers* Compensation Act, 88 UAC, 901 et toq. This act has been repeatedly upheld as providing the exclusive liability of an employer engaged In the maritime professions. As the Su premo Court stated in Jtyan Stevedoring i ' . i ' 8. MrflMn held that TT P.S. 1481(b) operates as an absolute bar to joinder ss a third party defendant the injured employee's employer in an action commenced by the employee- How. ever. 77 P.S. % 4Sl(b) does not preclude the original defendant from proving, st trial, that the tnpfoyer'* actions were tW preadiaw end legal cause of the injury. a. la Cosies r. ftxomac Bfcirie Power Co* V F.Supp rrs (D.o.ciwtK the coftsdtunnwiiiiy of 33 C S C. 4 90S was upheld.