Pennsylvania Supreme Court Holds Co‑Worker Immunity Applies Only When Both Employees Are Acting in the Course of Employment At The Time of Injury

In this case, Brown, an employee, was injured on the job with American Concrete Solutions (ACS) while attempting to enter a skid loader when a hydraulic arm caught his body, crushing him between the top of the cab and the arm of the bucket, causing numerous severe injuries. ACS was owned by Gaydos and his cousin, pursuant to a partnership agreement. Previously, Gaydos operated as a sole proprietorship under the name Gaydos Construction, and acquired various construction equipment, including the skid loader in question. After forming ACS, Gaydos continued to own and insure the skid loader. He and his cousin agreed to provide individually owned equipment as needed, and ACS would not own or pay for the use of the equipment. Gaydos was present at the ACS jobsite the day of the work injury, but left before it occurred.

Following the accident, Brown filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits against ACS, which he received. Later, Brown filed a civil action against Gaydos for negligence in maintaining the skid loader and failing to train and supervise ACS employees operating it. Gaydos filed a motion for summary judgment asserting immunity under the Act, as either the employer, or co-employee. A cross-motion for summary judgment was filed by Brown, arguing Gaydos was not his employer. Ultimately, the trial court granted Gaydos’ motion and found that he was immune under the Act as an owner of ACS, Brown’s employer, and alternately, Brown’s co-employee. Brown then appealed to the Superior Court.

The Superior Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, finding that the Act provides immunity from civil liability to a co-employee whose negligent actions caused the claimant’s injuries, so long as, at the time of injury, the co-employee was in the scope of employment with the injured party. Gaydos filed a petition for allowance of appeal to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The court considered the issue of whether a co-employee was entitled to immunity under the Act if the co-employee was not acting in the course of employment at the time of injury. Gaydos argued that the Act provides immunity to co-employees who are “in the same employ” as the injured worker, which does not require a co-employee to be acting in the course and scope of their employment with the injured worker to apply.

The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding immunity only applies when the parties are in the “same employ,” which requires the parties to be acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident. The court rejected Gaydos’ interpretation of co-employee immunity, which was that all co-workers are entitled to immunity for incidents that occur on a work site, as long as the injured worker and the person claiming immunity had the same employer. According to the court, this ignored the requirement that the negligent act or omission occurred while the party invoking immunity and the injured worker were both in the scope of employment at the time of injury. The court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.