Court Opinion

ID: 9702912
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:31:20.137347+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:43.264855
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Mr. Justice Cohen:
This case and the recently decided Groner v. Hedrick, 403 Pa. 148, 169 A. 2d 302 (1961), demonstrate the inconsistencies that occur when faithful judicial interpretation gives way to sympathetic action. In the Groner case, even though the plaintiff admitted she knew of the danger, the majority opined, “We think that it was for the jury to say whether plaintiff, under the economic pressure of the job, had knowledge of the facts and understanding of the risks. . . .” (Emphasis supplied). The domestic employee in the instant case was under the same “economic pressure of the job” as the domestic employee in the Croner case. In Croner the majority allowed recovery — here, it is denied. Apparently the majority’s standard is attuned to their personal sympathies. Personally, I prefer that the basis of granting or denying recovery should be more scientifically determined.
*464Years ago by constitutional amendment and legislative action we enacted Tbe Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act which provided a method of adjudicating rights arising from injuries suffered in the course of employment, recognizing that the established law provided no recovery. Perhaps The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act should be extended to domestic employees. That is much better than having our basic legal concepts distorted by such unscientific measuring rods as the “economic pressure of the job.”
Here, as in Groner, the domestic employee admittedly knew of the danger. Here, as in Groner, having continued to work with full knowledge of the exposed danger, there should be no recovery since the duty owed by the employer to the employee had been acquitted. That there was an improper recovery in Groner is no reason to continue the legal distortion. Hence, I concur.