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.

MATTHEW TODD HELINEK v. FRANK J. HELINEK (01/09/85)

filed: January 9, 1985.

MATTHEW TODD HELINEK, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK J. HELINEK, JR., DELVA ASSOCIATES, INC., RONALD LANDIS AND EDWIN S. BECHTEL, INC.; MATTHEW TODD HELINEK, APPELLEE V. FRANK J. HELINEK, JR., DELVA ASSOCIATES, INC., RONALD LANDIS AND EDWIN S. BECHTEL, INC. APPEAL OF RONALD LANDIS AND EDWIN S. BECHTEL, INC.



NO. 01306 Philadelphia, 1983, NO. 01391 Philadelphia, 1983, Appeal from the Order entered April 26, 1983, in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Civil, No. 81-05462.

COUNSEL

William H. Kinkhead, Philadelphia, for appellant (at 1306), and appellee (at 1391).

Richard N. Shapiro, Norristown, for appellant (at 1391).

Richard T. Abell, Ambler, for appellees (at 1306).

McEwen, Del Sole and Popovich, JJ.

Author: Mcewen

[ 337 Pa. Super. Page 498]

Appellant, Matthew Todd Helinek, was a passenger in a car owned by his employer, Delva Associates, Inc., and driven by his father, Frank J. Helinek, an officer/employee of Delva Associates, when the car collided with a truck owned by Edwin S. Bechtel, Inc. and operated by its employee, Ronald Landis. Matthew Helinek instituted suit against Frank J. Helinek, Delva Associates, Ronald Landis and Edwin S. Bechtel, Inc. The trial court, after reviewing the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions of record, granted summary judgment in favor of Delva Associates and Frank J. Helinek on the ground

[ 337 Pa. Super. Page 499]

    that suit against them was barred by Section 205 of the Workmen's Compensation Act.*fn1 The court concluded that Section 205 of the Act barred suit against these two defendants based upon the court's finding that Matthew Helinek had been injured while acting within the course and scope of his employment with Delva Associates. Appeals from the order granting summary judgment were undertaken by Edwin S. Bechtel, Inc., Ronald Landis and Matthew Helinek and consolidated by this Court. We now reverse the order entering judgment and remand for further proceedings.

"A motion for summary judgment may properly be granted only 'if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.' Pa.R.C.P. 1035(b). See also Rybas v. Wapner, 311 Pa. Super. 50, 53, 457 A.2d 108, 109 (1983); Williams v. Pilgrim Life Insurance Co., 306 Pa. Super. 170, 172, 452 A.2d 269, 270 (1982). In passing upon a motion for summary judgment, the court must examine the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Pocono International Raceway, Inc. v. Pocono Produce, Inc., 503 Pa. 80, 82, 468 A.2d 468, 470 (1983); Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 322 Pa. Super. 121, 128, 469 A.2d 212, 213 (1983); Wilk v. Haus, 313 Pa. Super. 479, 481-82, 460 A.2d 288, 289-290 (1983). It is not part of the court's function to decide issues of fact but solely to determine whether there is an issue of fact to be tried. Wilk v. Haus, supra, 313 Pa. Super. at 482, 460 A.2d at 290; Tom Morello Construction Co. v. Bridgeport Federal Savings & Loan Association, 280 Pa. Super. 329, 334, 421 A.2d 747, 750 (1980). Any doubt must be resolved against the moving party. Chorba v. Davlisa Enterprises, Inc., 303 Pa. Super. 497, 500, 450 A.2d 36, 38 (1982); First Pennsylvania Bank, N.A. v. Triester, 251 Pa. Super. 372, 378, 380 A.2d 826, 829 (1971)." Thorsen v. Iron and Glass Bank, 328 Pa. Super. 135, 141,

[ 337 Pa. Super. Page 500476]

A.2d 928, 930-931 (1984). Accord Thompson Coal Co. v. Pike Coal Co., 488 Pa. 198, 202-04, 412 A.2d 466, 468-469 (1979); Day v. Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft, 318 Pa. Super. 225, 231, 464 A.2d 1313, 1316 (1983).

It is important to note, moreover, that "'[a]ll doubts as to the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact must be resolved against the party moving for summary judgment . . . . A party should not be deprived of an adequate opportunity to fully develop his case by witnesses and a trial, when the issues involved make such procedure the appropriate one . . . . It is often the case that although the basic facts are not in dispute, the parties in good faith may nevertheless disagree about the inferences to be drawn from these facts, what the intention of the parties was as shown by the facts. . . . Under such circumstances the case is not one to be decided by the Trial Judge on a motion for summary judgment.'" Christman v. Dravo Corporation, 319 Pa. Super. 378, 380, 466 A.2d 209, 210 (1983) quoting Wilk v. Haus, supra, 313 Pa. Super. at 482, 460 A.2d at 290 (emphasis supplied). The expressions of this Court in both ...


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.