Legal Opinion

O'Donnell v. R.M. Shoemaker & Co.

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided February 3, 2003PublishedCited by 6 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStevens, J.

¶ 1 At issue in this case is whether an injured worker may recover in tort from an employee of the injured worker’s statutory employer or whether such recovery is limited to benefits under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act (Act), 77 P.S. §§ 1-2626. In granting a motion for summary judgment in favor of Appellees R.M. Shoemaker & Company, Fluidics, Inc. (hereinafter Fluidics), and Jerome Penn, the trial court concluded that James and Linda O’Donnells’ sole remedy was limited to the Act. On appeal, the O’Donnells do not dispute that recovery for James O’Donnell’s injuries as to R.M.…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. McDonald v. Levinson Steel Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1930
  2. Peck v. Delaware County Board of Prison InspectorsSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  3. Gardner v. Erie InsuranceSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1999
  4. Abbott v. Anchor Glass Container Corp.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  5. Albright v. FaganSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1996

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by6 opinions

  1. Burrell, B. v. Streamlight, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  2. Burrell, B. v. Streamlight, Inc.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2019
  3. Brown, J. v. Gaydos, G., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2026
  4. Hogue v. Soom, Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lawrence County2007
  5. Thomas v. Aethos Construction Co., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Alleghany County2004

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API