Court Opinion

ID: 9729158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:28:12.215128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.840800
License: Public Domain

JOHNSON, Judge,
dissenting:
I cannot agree with the majority opinion. The trial court correctly dismissed the preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer raised by appellant Montgomery Ward. The exclusive protection provided by the Workman’s Compensation Act to employers from an employee’s suit for injury arising in the course of employment does not exclude suit by the employee for an intentional tort. In Jones v. P.M.A. Insurance Co., 343 Pa.Super. 411, 495 A.2d 203 (1985), we upheld the continuing validity of the holding in Readinger v. Gotschall, 201 Pa.Super. 134, 191 A.2d 694 (1963), which allows such actions. The injury of which appellee Rosipal complains is not to her physical condition but to her legal rights under the Workman’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 1 et seq. An injury to legal rights does not arise out of, and in the course of, employment. It is an independent injury. I agree with the majority of jurisdictions which hold an intentional tort of this nature to give rise to an independent cause of action. See generally; 2A Larson Workman’s Compensation § 68.32(b) and the cases cited therein. Accordingly, I dissent.
Rosipal was injured on her employer’s premises on February 7, 1983. The alleged tortious actions at issue in this litigation first occurred on April 18, 1983. On that date Montgomery Ward and Aetna Insurance Company filed a Petition for Termination of Compensation alleging that Rosipal had filed a fraudulent compensation claim.
*576The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation statute, as amended in 1972, provides:
[E]very employer shall be liable for compensation for personal injury to, or for the death of each employe, by an injury in the course of his employment, and such compensation shall be paid in all cases by the employer, without regard to negligence ...
77 Pa.C.S. § 431. (emphasis added). Furthermore, 77 Pa. C.S. § 411 provides in part that,
§ 411. “Injury,” “personal injury,” and “injury arising in the course of his employment” defined
The term “injury arising in the course of his employment,” ____shall include all other injuries sustained while the employee is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer, whether employer’s premises or elsewhere, and shall include all injuries caused by the condition of the premises or by the operation of the employer’s business or affairs thereon, sustained by the employee, who, though not so engaged, is injured upon the premises occupied by or under the control of the employer, or upon which the employer’s business or affairs are being carried on, the employe’s presence thereon being required by the nature of his employment.
(emphasis added)
77 Pa.C.S. § 411.
This action did not arise in the course of Rosipal’s employment. The argument that an employee is actually engaged in the furtherance of the business or affairs of the employer as a result of being the object of an intentional tortious injury contravenes sound reason. “(H)armful conduct is considered more reprehensible if intentional---- Even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.” O.W. Holmes, the Common Law 3 (1881).
The majority holds that Rosipal’s present litigation is barred by the exclusivity of the Act: Had she not been an employee of Montgomery Ward, she would not have filed this action, i.e., “but for” her previous employment, the *577present litigation would not have ensued. This is a proximate cause test. Modern authorities reject the application of proximate cause to Worker’s Compensation Law. 1 Larson Workman’s Compensation § 6.60. As a legal concept, proximate cause is founded in causation. The beginning of proximate cause is always an act from which there are consequences. In Workman’s Compensation Law, the beginning point is not an act but a condition, i.e., employment, out of which the event arises; accordingly, the operative criterion is a connection with employment. The injury Rosipal suffered on February 7, 1983 falls within this category. It is an injury for which the Workman’s Compensation Act is the exclusive remedy. Rosipal was no longer an employee of Montgomery Ward on April 11, 1983, the date of the first of the alleged intentional torts. Therefore, she is not barred from pursuing her remedies at common law for the alleged second set of injuries.
The standard of review of an appellate court in passing on the challenge to the sustaining of a preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer was stated in Kyle v. McNamara and Criste, 506 Pa. 631, 487 A.2d 814 (1985):
All material facts set forth in the Complaint as well as all inferences reasonably deducible therefrom are admitted as true for [the purpose of this review]. The question presented by the demurrer is whether on the facts averred the law says with certainty that no recovery is possible. Where a doubt exists as to whether a demurrer should be sustained, this doubt should be resolved in favor of overruling it.
506 Pa. 631, 634, 487 A.2d at 816 (citations omitted).
The only preliminary objection in the nature of a demurrer raised by Montgomery Ward is that Rosipal’s Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Montgomery Ward contends that the Workman’s Compensation Act is the exclusive statutory remedy for all counts raised in her pleadings. Our supreme court has recently held in LeFlar v. Gulf Creek Industrial Park #2, 511 Pa. 574, 581, 515 A.2d 875, 879 (1986) that the Workman’s *578Compensation Act deprives the Common Pleas Court of jurisdiction of common law actions in tort for negligence against employers. The Statutory Construction Act, 1 Pa. C.S. § 1928(b)(7), requires strict construction of provisions decreasing the jurisdiction of a court of record, which would include the Court of Common Pleas. See, 42 Pa.C.S. 301, 42 Pa.C.S. 901. Accordingly, the LeFlar holding is limited to negligent torts.
Furthermore, under Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1030, immunity from suit is an affirmative defense which must be pled under new matter. See Pa.R.C.P. 1030. It is not properly raised as a matter which is the subject of preliminary objections. Pa.R.C.P. 1017(b)(4). For this reason appellant has raised no valid objection to Rosipal’s complaint which would be properly before this court. Nevertheless, as I view the facts stated in the complaint under the applicable standard of review, appellee has pleaded facts sufficient to allow the action to proceed. Rosipal has met the threshold requirements for a cause of action for wrongful use of civil proceedings under 42 Pa.C.S. § 8351. Accordingly, I dissent.