General Liability

In a non-precedential opinion, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined the defendant residential operator was a statutory employer of the plaintiff, an employee of a kitchen contractor, and thus, was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action.

While the plaintiff worked in the kitchen of a youth residential institution, he was injured when a grill he was cleaning fell on his arm.  The plaintiff was an employee of the food service contractor that was hired by the defendant to provide food services at the property. The defendant leased the property and operated the youth residential institution on the property.  The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit and, after discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that it was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action under the Workers’ Compensation Act since it was a statutory employer. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the defendant sufficiently occupied the kitchen on the property to satisfy the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court ruled that, with regard to the second factor, an employer’s occupancy or control must be actual but need not be exclusive. The Commonwealth Court also ruled that an employer only needs to prove either occupancy or control, not both. In reviewing the evidence, the Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling that the defendant occupied the property and thus, satisfied the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court held that the defendant was a statutory employer under the Act and was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order.