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.

INEZ HEATH v. CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN (08/25/88)

decided: August 25, 1988.

INEZ HEATH, APPELLANT,
v.
CHURCH'S FRIED CHICKEN, INC., CARLING SWITCH, INC., KLEIN HARDWARE CORPORATION AND DOERR ELECTRIC CORPORATION, APPELLEES



Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court entered August 11, 1986, at No. 02496 Philadelphia, 1985, affirming the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia entered August 27, 1985, at No. 2966 March Term, 1984

COUNSEL

Joseph C. Murray, Allen L. Rothenberg, Philadelphia, for Inez Heath.

Austin Hogan, Philadelphia, for Doerr.

Wayne Partenheimer, Joseph DeMaria, Philadelphia, for Carling.

G. Wayne Renneisen, Robert J. Dougher, Philadelphia, for Church's.

Nix, C.j., and Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos and Stout, JJ. Papadakos, J., joins this opinion and files a separate concurring opinion. Larsen, J., files a dissenting opinion in which Stout, J., joins.

Author: Mcdermott

[ 519 Pa. Page 275]

OPINION

Appellant, Inez Heath, appeals to us from the order of the Superior Court affirming the entry of summary judgment by the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. 359 Pa. Super. 632, 515 A.2d 621 (1986). Upon petition we granted allocatur.

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Appellant at all times relevant to this proceeding was an employee of appellee, Church's Fried Chicken, Inc. While in the course of her employment appellant was severely injured while operating

[ 519 Pa. Page 276]

    a "chicken saw". This saw was manufactured by appellee. As a result of this injury appellant received workmen's compensation benefits. In addition to these benefits appellant sought additional recovery by filing an original action in trespass and assumpsit. Her theories of recovery were based upon the allegedly defective nature of the manufactured chicken saw, and she attempted to state causes of action in negligence, strict liability, and breach of warranty. In new matter appellee pled, inter alia, a defense of employer immunity based upon the exclusivity provision of the Workmen's Compensation Act (Act)*fn1 which provides:

The liability of an employer under this Act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employees, his legal representative, husband or wife, parents, dependents, next-of-kin, or anyone otherwise entitled to damages in any action at law or otherwise on account of any injury or death as defined in section ...


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.