Appeals, Nos. 258 and 259, Oct. T., 1962, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 5, June T., 1961, No. 4410, in case of Joseph J. French v. Coff Decorators et al. Decision affirmed.
Robert S. Grodinsky, with him Kaplan, Levy and Grodinsky, for employer, appellant.
Ralph P. Higgins, with him Harper, George, Buchanan & Driver, for insurer, appellant.
Laurence H. Eldredge, with him Francis X. Diebold, for claimant, appellee.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 483]
In this workmen's compensation case, the pivotal issue is whether the claimant was in the scope of his employment when he was injured. The referee denied the claimant compensation, holding that the accident
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 484]
occurred when the employe was outside the scope of his employment. The Workmen's Compensation Board reversed this decision, and the Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia affirmed the board's decision granting compensation to the employe. This appeal followed.
It is the board, and not the court, which weighs the testimony of witnesses and accepts or rejects it in whole or in part, and the findings of the board are final if supported by competent evidence. Goodman v. University Shop, Inc., 195 Pa. Superior Ct. 129, 131, 169 A.2d 316 (1961).
The board found from competent evidence substantially as follows: The claimant was engaged in work for the defendant at an average weekly wage of $40. The defendant's business was that of a decorator. The claimant picked up and delivered drapes and bed spreads and he also hung drapes. In the course of his employment, the claimant, although only 16 years of age, drove the defendant's truck or station wagon every day and his area required him to traverse the City of Philadelphia and its suburbs and sometimes parts of New Jersey.
On Friday afternoon, November 13, 1959, the claimant was told by his employer that he would have to work the next day. In the late afternoon of that day, the claimant loaded his truck with drapes at 1001 Kerper Street, Philadelphia, which was the defendant's home, and from which point the defendant conducted part of his business. The defendant employer instructed the claimant to take the truck ...