Court Opinion

ID: 9629930
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 09:53:43.901796+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:27.465078
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Erickson
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Dore’s position as a bank guard undoubtedly came' about because he was a policeman, but his compensation for serving as a bank guard came from the bank. His *372duties as a bank guard were to guard the bank. While he was serving in that capacity and while guarding the bank, he was injured, and his injuries came about from his employment by the bank. The bank, not the City, was the employer.
In determining liability for injuries sustained by an employee in the course of his employment, the principal test is who had the power to control and direct the employee in the performance of his duties at the time of the injury. Smakosz v. City of Beaver Falls, 209 Pa.Super. 115, 224 A.2d 785 (1966); see Stafford v. Gilmer, 98 So.2d 522 (La.App. 1957); Gocs v. Coale's Distributing Lumber Co., 142 Pa.Super. 479, 16 A.2d 720 (1940). Other matters to be considered are the selection and engagement of the employee, as well as the payment of his wages. Under all of these tests, the bank, rather than the City, was clearly the employer of the respondent at the time the respondent was injured.
Mr. Justice Groves has authorized me to say that he joins me in my dissent.