Legal Opinion

Kulik v. Mash

Superior Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 16, 2009No. DOCKET NO. A-5501-06T2PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION BY

KLEIN, J.

¶ 1 Roderick Kulik 1 appeals from the Order granting Rose Mash’s summary judgment on the ground that the claim is barred by the Workers’ Compensation Act. We agree with the ruling of the trial judge, the Honorable Paul F. Lutty, Jr., and affirm.

¶ 2 Kulik arrived approximately 30 minutes early, for his job at Sears Roebuck & Co in Pittsburgh and was sleeping in his car until it was time to start his shift. 2 He claims that he was injured when another Sears employee, Rose Marsh, backed into his car while he was in it.

¶ 3 The issue turns on whether Kulik was in the scope of…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. United States Steel Corp.Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1977
  2. Jadosh v. GoeringerSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1971
  3. Kmart Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2000
  4. Dana Corp. v. Workmen's Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1988
  5. Giebel v. CommonwealthCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1979

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

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Ace Wire Spring & Form Co v. Workers' Compensation Appeal BoardCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 2014
  2. Evans, R. v. Hostetter, M.Superior Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  3. Franczyk, L. v. The Home Depot, Aplts.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2023
  4. Franczyk, L. v. The Home Depot, Pets.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2022

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

Powered by the Exa API