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.

GERALD L. SCANTLIN v. RICHARD H. ULRICH (08/19/83)

filed: August 19, 1983.

GERALD L. SCANTLIN, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD H. ULRICH, INDIVIDUALLY, AND D/B/A RICHARD H. ULRICH ASSEMBLY



No. 955 Philadelphia 1982, Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Division, of Lycoming County at No. 81-0642.

COUNSEL

David C. Raker, Williamsport, for appellant.

Richard A. Gray, Williamsport, for appellee.

Hester, Cavanaugh and Popovich, JJ.

Author: Popovich

[ 318 Pa. Super. Page 408]

On March 11, 1981, appellant, Gerald L. Scantlin, filed a complaint in trespass against appellee, Richard H. Ulrich, individually, and also appellee's company, Richard H. Ulrich

[ 318 Pa. Super. Page 409]

Assembly. The first two counts of the complaint alleged that appellant was injured because of appellee's deliberate, wilfull, and malicious act. The third and fourth counts alleged appellee's gross negligence. On June 5, 1981, appellee filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court found that appellant's injury was covered by his employer's workmen's compensation insurance and that appellant received benefits thereunder from March 17, 1979, through November 9, 1980. The court below found that the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act*fn1 provided appellant's exclusive remedy and, accordingly, granted appellee's motion for judgment on the pleadings. This appeal followed. We affirm.

In Eberhart v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co., 238 Pa. Super. 558, 362 A.2d 1094 (1976), we stated:

"When ruling on a defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, the complaint, the answer containing new matter, and the reply to new matter shall be considered. Herman v. Stern, 419 Pa. 272, 276 n. 1, 213 A.2d 594, 596 n. 1 (1965). Further, as this Court stated in Kroiz v. Blumenfeld, 229 Pa. Super. 194, 197, 323 A.2d 339, 340 (1974):

'The standards for determining whether a judgment on the pleadings should be allowed are clear . . . . All of the opposing party's well pleaded facts must be accepted as true. Bata v. Central Penn National Bank, 423 Pa. 373, 224 A.2d 174 (1966); Herman v. Stern, 419 Pa. 272, 213 A.2d 594 (1965). A judgment on the pleadings should be granted only when a case is free from doubt and a trial would be a fruitless exercise. Blumer v. Dorfman, 447 Pa. 131, 289 A.2d 463 (1972).' (Emphasis in original)."

Id., 238 Pa. Superior Ct. at 560, 362 A.2d at 1095.

Appellant contends that his receipt of workmen's compensation benefits does not ...


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.