Bartley v. Concrete Masonry Corp.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
1Concurring in part, dissenting in partHester, Judge
I concur with the action of the majority in affirming the summary judgment as to Carolin Masonry, the employer of decedent. The liability of Carolin is controlled by the Workman’s Compensation Act.
However, I must respectfully dissent from the conclusion of the majority to the effect that appellee-Massaro was the statutory employer of decedent. It is admitted that decedent was not an employee of Massaro at the time he sustained his fatal injury. It is further admitted that Massaro did not provide Workman’s Compensation Coverage for decedent; that coverage was provided by decedent’s employer,…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Commonwealth v. HillSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1978
- Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board v. HartliebSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1975
- Capozzoli v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1945
- Stipanovich v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 1967
- Cranshaw Construction Inc. v. GhristSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1981
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.