Pennsylvania: Dual Capacity Tort Claim Fails Against Boss Who Owned Both the Bar and the Building

A Pennsylvania appellate court affirmed a trial court’s entry of a compulsory non-suit in plaintiff’s civil action filed against the defendant premises owner on the grounds that the lawsuit was barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. Plaintiff, who worked at a bar owned by the defendant, contended that defendant owed a separate duty to plaintiff as the premises owner. The trial court indicated the dual capacity doctrine did not apply and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed. The Court initially that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had applied the “dual capacity” doctrine in only one case, Tatrai v. Presbyterian University Hospital, 497 Pa. 247, 439 A.2d 1162 (Pa. 1982), allowing a civil action to proceed against a hospital that both employed and treated the injured hospital employee. Citing Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the court there allowed the civil action only because the injured employee was in the same position as any other member of the public receiving medical treatment because the emergency room was open to the general public. Here, however, plaintiff was injured while working at the bar; it was nearly impossible to separate defendant’s involvement as a co-employee/boss from his role as building owner.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance.

See Neidert v. Charlie, 2016 Pa. Super. LEXIS 349 (June 29, 2016)

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 113.02.

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law