Appeals, Nos. 66, 345, and 350, Oct. T., 19628 from judgments of Court of Common Pleas No. 1, Dec. T., 1960, Nos, 2468 and 2535, Court of Common Pleas No. 3, Dec. T., 1960, No. 2470, Court of Common Pleas No. 5, Dec. T., 1960, No. 2469, and Court of Common Pleas No. 6, Dec. T., 1961, No. 3330, in case of Howard W. Carlson v. Chevrolet Motor Division, General Motors Corporation, et al. Order affirmed.
Peter P. Liebert, 3rd, with him John J. McDevitt, 3rd, for appellant, defendant, General Motors, and its carrier.
Alexander F. Barbieri, for claimant.
Raymond J. Porreca, for defendant, Albert M. Greenfield & Co., Inc.
Before Rhodes, P.j., Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ.
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 462]
In this workmen's compensation case the claimant filed claim petitions against Chevrolet Motor Division General Motors Corporation and Albert M. Greenfield & Co., Inc. seeking to determine which company was his employer for compensation purposes and the amount of compensation payable for injuries which he sustained from a falling counterweight which engaged in his occupation as a stagehand in a Chevrolet Automobile
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 463]
show held at the Town Hall theatre, managed by Greenfield as representative of the owner. The referee found Chevrolet to be the employer, but was reversed by the board which found that Greenfield was the employer. Thereafter, on appeal the court below reversed the board and remanded the record with directions to enter an award in accordance with the finding of the referee. From this order an appeal was taken to this court by Chevrolet and its insurance carrier, Royal Indemnity Company. Thereafter, the board found Chevrolet to be the employer and entered an award against it. From the affirmance of this award by the court below, appeals were taken to this court by Chevrolet and the claimant. However, the claimant is satisfied to have Chevrolet designated as his employer for compensation purposes, and has not actively pressed his appeal. Greenfield apparently wishes to have its liability fixed as that of an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act, so that it may avoid liability in trespass for personal injuries, and therefore argues that Chevroleths appeals should be sustained. All of the contentions of Chevrolet, mentioned below, were also urged by Greenfield.
The facts and the reasons for the orders entered by the court below are stated as follows in the opinion of President Judge HAGAN: "... Claimant, a stagehand, testified that when a road show company, such as the Chevrolet road show company, set out to put on shows in various cities, it first negotiated with the International union, which determined how many stagehands were required. This information was forwarded to the Local unions in the various cities where the road show would be appearing, and the Local union would send the required number of stagehands. In this case the Chevrolet road show appeared in Philadelphia at Town Hall, and one of the stagehands sent by the union was the claimant. He testified categorically that the only
[ 199 Pa. Super. Page 464]
person he took instructions from with respect to the manner in which his work was to be performed was an employee ...