# Vetter v. Fun Footwear Co.

> Superior Court of Pennsylvania · November 30, 1995 · 447 Pa. Super. 84

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637914

## Case

- **Full name:** Anthony J. VETTER, Administrator of the Estate of Roxanne Vetter, Deceased, and Anthony J. Vetter and Sally Vetter, His Wife, Individually, Appellants, v. FUN FOOTWEAR COMPANY, Also D/B/A Fun Shu, Ltd., McAdoo Fuels, Inc., T/A Stefanisko’s Catering Service, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Black Creek Township, and Sugarloaf Township
- **Court:** Superior Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** November 30, 1995
- **Citations:** 447 Pa. Super. 84; 668 A.2d 529; 1995 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3675
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cavanaugh
- **Judges:** Rowley, Cavanaugh, Beck, Tamilia, Kelly, Johnson, Hudock, Elliott, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 21 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637914

## Opinion text

CAVANAUGH, Judge,
concurring:
While I agree with the majority opinion which vacates the judgment on the pleadings and remands for further proceedings, I disagree with the disposition as it relates to a prior conflicting decision of this court.
As the majority states, Zook v. Fun Footwear, 364 Pa.Super. 657 , 525 A.2d 824 (1985) appeal denied, 518 Pa. 626 , 541 A.2d 1138 (1987) was a case which arose out of the same set of facts. Indeed, it also involved precisely the same issue: whether or not the Zook vehicle at the time of the collision on December 18, 1982 was engaged in an activity covered by the Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation Act. The Zook panel *97 decided that it was covered by the Act and affirmed a trial court order which dismissed the employer of Zook (who is also the employer of the present plaintiffs decedent Roxanne Vetter) on the basis of the exclusivity provision of the Worker’s Compensation Act. Zook was decided on an appeal from the grant of preliminary objections and the present decision is an appeal from judgment on the pleadings. Thus, both decisions have been rendered on non-evidentiary trial court dispositions yet, Zook found Worker’s Compensation Act coverage and we presently find (at least on the state of the record before us) that the exclusivity provision of the Act does not apply. The cases are in obvious conflict and the decisional credibility of this court requires that the Zook case be either followed or overruled. I would choose to follow the majority, but would overrule Zook .

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9637914. Public record. Not legal advice.