Appeals, Nos. 138 and 144, Jan. T., 1963, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 1 of Philadelphia County, March T., 1960, No. 2732, in case of Franklin Greet, Thomas S. Lavergheeta and Morris Yanoff v. Arned Corporation and Frank Iacobucci. Judgments affirmed.
James M. Marsh, with him LaBrum and Doak, for defendant, appellant.
Robert C. Kitchen, with him Joseph X. Heincer, for defendant, appellant.
Joseph D. Shein, with him Shein and Berlant, for plaintiffs, appellees.
Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'brien and Roberts, JJ.
OPINION BY MR. JUSTICE O'BRIEN
Appellant Arned Corporation (Arned) is the owner of certain land, upon which it was engaged in the construction of dwelling houses. In connection with this construction, Arned engaged appellant Frank Iacobucci (Iacobucci) to perform the carpentry work. Appellee Thomas Lavergheeta (Lavergheeta) was employed as a carpenter's helper by Iacobucci, and appellees Franklin Greet (Greet) and Morris Yanoff (Yanoff) were employees of one James Bruno, who had been engaged by Arned to do the roofing work.
The appellees were injured when a scaffold, on which they were working, collapsed. Their actions of trespass resulted in jury verdicts against both appellants, in the amounts of $3,500 for Greet, $5,000 for Lavergheeta and $20,000 for Yanoff. Arned and Iacobucci filed motions for judgment n.o.v. and for new trial, all of which were dismissed by the court en banc.
Upon the entry of judgments on the jury verdicts, these appeals were commenced.
Iacobucci seeks a new trial on the ground that the trial court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that Greet and Yanoff could not be found guilty of contributory negligence. Arned raises this question also, and in addition, complains that the trial court erred in refusing its request for a special finding; in ruling that Iacobucci was its servant or agent; and in failing to rule that the rights of the appellees are limited to those contained in the Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn* The motions for judgment n.o.v. have been abandoned.
The facts in the case are not complicated. On the morning of September 17, 1959, plaintiffs were engaged in work at the second floor level of the house under construction. All three plaintiffs were standing on a platform which was mounted on a wooden scaffold constructed by Iacobucci's foreman. It was Iacobucci's duty to erect the scaffolding, in accordance with the agreement ...