Summary
In Bock v. Frampton Co., 105 Pa. Super. 380, 161 A. 762, which was the first case construing the present statutory language, we said: "Manifestly, this amendment was intended by the lawmakers to extend the benefits of the statute to persons normally performing services within the Commonwealth for an employer whose place of business is within the Commonwealth, but who happened to be injured while they had gone temporarily beyond the limits of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties.
Summary of this case from DiSimone v. BeamOpinion
April 27, 1932.
July 14, 1932.
Workmen's compensation — Pennsylvania corporation — Employee — Injury in adjoining state — Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, P.L. 736, Section I as amended by the Act of April 29, 1929, P.L. 853.
In a claim for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there was evidence that the claimant's son was accidentally killed while employed as a salesman by the defendant corporation which maintained an office within the state but employed agents to perform services for it beyond the territorial limits of the state. The claimant's son was a resident of an adjoining state and was hired in that state by a representative of the defendant company. During the entire time of his employment he was never beyond the territorial limits of the adjoining state.
In such case the decedent was not a "Pennsylvania employee" within the meaning of Section I of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, P.L. 736, as amended by the Act of April 29, 1929, P.L. 853, and an award for the claimant will be reversed.
The amending Act of April 29, 1929, P.L., 853, extended the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, P.L. 736, only to persons normally performing services within the Commonwealth for an employer whose place of business is within the Commonwealth but who happened to be injured while they had gone temporarily beyond the limits of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties.
Appeal No. 95, April T., 1932, by defendant from judgment of C.P., Allegheny County, October T., 1930, No. 4553, in the case of Cora L. Bock v. D.B. Frampton Company and Hartford Accident Indemnity Company, insurance carrier.
Before TREXLER, P.J., KELLER, GAWTHROP, CUNNINGHAM, BALDRIGE, STADTFELD and PARKER, JJ. Reversed.
Appeal from award for claimant by Workmen's Compensation Board. Before SWEARINGER, J.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Superior Court.
The court sustained the award. Defendant appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was the order of the court.
L. Barton Ferguson, for appellant.
Mead J. Mulvihill, and with him Robert L. Wallace, for appellee.
Argued April 27, 1932.
Defendant appeals from a judgment sustaining an award made against it in a workmen's compensation case. Claimant is the mother of Robert L. Bock, who was accidentally killed while in the course of his employment at Homesville, Ohio, on July 29, 1929. It is conceded that she was partially dependent upon her son at the time of his death. Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation, maintaining an office only in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It is engaged in the buying and selling of lumber and has buying and selling agents performing services for it beyond the territorial limits of Pennsylvania. One of its agents was H.C. Kennedy, who lived in Coschocton, Ohio, and rendered his services in that state. Decedent, who resided in Ohio, went to see Kennedy at Coschocton and sought employment as an additional salesman for defendant in its Ohio territory. Kennedy went to Pittsburgh and received the authorization of his employer to hire the decedent as a helper at a salary of $25 per week, with an allowance for travelling expenses. Kennedy returned to Ohio and notified the decedent of defendant's offer, and the decedent accepted it and began work on June 12, 1929. During the time of his employment he was never beyond the territorial limits of Ohio.
The single legal question involved in the case is whether Section I of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1915, P.L. 736, as amended by the Act of 1929, P.L. 853 (which is set forth in the margin) permits the claimant to receive compensation for the death of her son. Prior to the passage of the amendment the act did not apply to any accident occurring outside of the Commonwealth. The amendment of 1929 made an exception to "accidents occurring to Pennsylvania employes whose duties required them to go temporarily beyond the territorial limits of the Commonwealth, not over ninety days, when such employes are performing services for employers whose place of business is within the Commonwealth." Manifestly, this amendment was intended by the lawmakers to extend the benefits of the statute to persons normally performing services within the Commonwealth for an employer whose place of business is within the Commonwealth, but who happened to be injured while they had gone temporarily beyond the limits of the Commonwealth in the performance of their duties. It seems clear that the term "Pennsylvania employes" refers only to employes who perform the major portion of their services within the Commonwealth. We cannot agree with the conclusion of the compensation board that the term "Pennsylvania employes," as used in the act, refers to every employe who is working for a Pennsylvania employer. The words "Pennsylvania employes whose duties require them to go temporarily beyond the territorial limits of the Commonwealth," negative such a construction of the term. As it is an admitted fact that from the time Bock was hired on June 12, 1929, until his death on July 29, 1929, he was always within the State of Ohio and never in Pennsylvania, the statute did not apply to the accident. It follows that the award made against defendant cannot be sustained.
The judgment of the court below and the award of the compensation board are reversed; judgment is here entered for defendant.
"Section I. Be it enacted, c., That this Act shall be called and cited as The Workmen's Compensation Act of one thousand nine hundred and fifteen, and shall apply to all accidents occurring within this Commonwealth, irrespective of the place where the contract of hiring was made, renewed, or extended, and shall not apply to any accident occurring outside of the Commonwealth, except accidents occurring to Pennsylvania employes whose duties require them to go temporarily beyond the territorial limits of the Commonwealth, not over ninety days, when such employes are performing services for employers whose place of business is within the Commonwealth."