Case Name: Gary EISEL v. U. S. SLICING MACHINE COMPANY, INC. and Berkel, Incorporated, Appellants, v. EAST CARSON PACKING COMPANY, a corporation
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1980-03-20
Citations: 488 Pa. 192
Docket Number: Appeal No. 153
Parties: Gary EISEL v. U. S. SLICING MACHINE COMPANY, INC. and Berkel, Incorporated, Appellants, v. EAST CARSON PACKING COMPANY, a corporation.
Judges: Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN and FLAHERTY, JJ.
Reporter: Pennsylvania State Reports
Volume: 488
Pages: 192–194

Head Matter:
412 A.2d 138
Gary EISEL v. U. S. SLICING MACHINE COMPANY, INC. and Berkel, Incorporated, Appellants, v. EAST CARSON PACKING COMPANY, a corporation.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued Dec. 13, 1979.
Decided March 20, 1980.
William R. Tighe, Jr., Stein & Winters, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Elmer G. Klaber, Pittsburgh, for appellee, East Carson Packing Co.
C. S. Fossee, Pittsburgh, for appellee, Gary Eisel.
Before EAGEN, C. J., and O’BRIEN, ROBERTS, NIX, LARSEN and FLAHERTY, JJ.

Opinion:
OPINION OF THE COURT
FLAHERTY, Justice.
Gary Eisel filed a complaint in trespass against U. S. Slicing Machine Company, Inc., and Berkel, Inc. alleging that while in the course and scope of his employment with East Carson Packing Company (employer) he sustained serious personal injuries when he slipped and fell against a meat slicer manufactured by the defendants and sold by them to his employer. Berkel, Inc. filed a complaint to join the employer as additional defendant and the employer filed preliminary objections asserting that Section 303(b) of the Pennsylvania Workmen's Compensation Act, Act of December 5, 1974, P.L. 782, No. 263, § 6, 77 P.S. § 481(b) (Supp. 1979) barred such joinder. Berkel, Inc. filed a reply to the preliminary objections, claiming that Section 303(b) is unconstitutional. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sustained employer's preliminary objections, and Berkel, Inc. appealed. The Superior Court (sitting as a panel of three judges) affirmed, - Pa.Super. -, 407 A.2d 36 (1979), relying on its decision in Tsarnas v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 262 Pa.Super. 417, 396 A.2d 1241 (1978). We granted allocatur and now affirm for the reasons set forth in our opinion filed this day in Tsarnas, supra, 488 Pa. 513, 412 A.2d 1094 (1980).
Order affirmed.
LARSEN, J., filed a concurring opinion.
NIX, J., concurred in the result.