Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

RAMONDO v. RAMONDO ET AL. APPEAL TIMOTHY GALLAGHER (07/19/51)

July 19, 1951

RAMONDO
v.
RAMONDO ET AL. APPEAL OF TIMOTHY GALLAGHER, INC., ET AL.



COUNSEL

John B. Martin, Joseph Head, Jr., Henry T. Reath, Duane, Morris & Heckscher, Philadelphia, for appellants.

Daniel J. McCauley, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellee.

Before Rhodes, P. J., and Hirt, Reno, Ross, Arnold and Gunther, JJ.

Author: Rhodes

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 103]

RHODES, President Judge.

The question in this workmen's compensation case is whether claimant when accidentally injured was the servant of Frank Ramondo, the general employer, or of Timothy Gallagher, Inc., the borrowing employer.

Claimant filed a claim petition against both parties. The referee found that claimant was in the employ of the defendant Timothy Gallagher, Inc. (hereafter called Gallagher), at the time of the accident. The Workmen's Compensation Board affirmed the award. On appeal the court of common pleas affirmed the Board and entered judgment on the award. Timothy Gallagher, Inc., and its insurance carrier have appealed.

The Board affirmed the finding of the referee that claimant was an employe and under the supervision of Gallagher at the time of the accident, and further stated that 'The right to direct both what work was to be done and the manner in which it was to be done was vested in the Gallagher corporation,' which 'through its superintendent not only supervised the work performed by the claimant but also had the right to control the manner and means by which the grading was to be accomplished.'

On November 18, 1948, claimant, while grading with a bulldozer owned by Gallagher, was severely injured. Gallagher was engaged in the construction of houses at Gladwyne, Pennsylvania. The construction required considerable grading for which three bulldozers were utilized: One belonged to Gallagher and was operated by an employe or employes hired by that corporation; another belonged to and was rented with an operator from DiAngeli Brothers; the third belonged to Frank Ramondo, and was rented to Gallagher with claimant as operator at an hourly rate of $11. Claimant was

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 104]

    hired and his wages were paid on a weekly basis by Frank Ramondo, who also supplied the gas and oil for the operation of his bulldozer. For three weeks prior to the accident claimant had been doing grading work for Gallagher, operating at times each of the three bulldozers. On November 18, 1948, claimant was requested or asked by Gallagher's foreman or superintendent to operate the Gallagher bulldozer. Neither Frank Ramondo nor any employe of Frank Ramondo directed or told claimant what to do in the performance of his work for Gallagher. Claimant's instructions were given by Gallagher's foreman or superintendent, and they told him 'what we want done.' Claimant testified that they directed him 'where and how to grade, and when.' They determined the extent and nature of the grading to be done by claimant for the building project; and they supervised and directed the operation of claimant so that his work would conform to the plans and specifications prepared for Gallagher by its architects and engineers. They decided as to the particular equipment claimant was to use. Gallagher's superintendent testified: 'Q. Now, some bulldozers were equipped with blades in front and some had a pan in back, is that right? A. That's right. * * * Q. It was up to them [claimant] to decide whether to use a blade in front or a pan in back? A. No, that was up to Mr. Neelon or Mr. Gallagher whether they wanted that pan operated.' Claimant had charge of the actual mechanical operation of any bulldozer which he used for Gallagher in its building operation. Gallagher required three bulldozers to do the necessary grading on its property which covered twenty-six acres. Gallagher's supervision and control of claimant were the same as that exercised over the other employes of Gallagher, and only Gallagher's foreman or superintendent directed claimant as to what work he was to do and the manner in which it was to be done.

[ 169 Pa. Super. Page 105]

We find no basis for appellant's contention that the defendant Frank Ramondo, who was never on the Gallagher job, retained sole control over claimant while he was doing grading work on Gallagher's premises, and that consequently Ramondo was ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.