# Martin v. Lancaster Battery Co., Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · March 18, 1992 · 530 Pa. 11

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763051

## Case

- **Full name:** Joseph H. MARTIN, Sr. and Patricia J. Martin, Husband and Wife, Appellees, v. LANCASTER BATTERY COMPANY, INC. and Stuart C. Manix, and R.A. Boben, Jr., M.D. and Lancaster Pediatric Associates, Ltd. Appeal of LANCASTER BATTERY CO., INC., and Stuart C. Manix
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** March 18, 1992
- **Citations:** 530 Pa. 11; 606 A.2d 444; 1992 Pa. LEXIS 241
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Flaherty
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Zappala, Papadakos, Cappy
- **Cited by:** 85 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/9763051

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding employee could proceed against employer in action for fraudulent misrepresentation where employee’s complaint alleged, inter alia, employee was regularly exposed to lead fumes and dust at place of employment, employer tested employee’s blood to monitor lead levels, emp…
- holding a complaint satisfies the requirement of Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(b) that fraud must be averred with particularity if it (1) “adequately explain[s] the nature of the claim to the opposing party so as to permit the preparation of a defense” and (2) is “…
- holding employee’s claim of fraudulent misrepresentation was actionable at common law and not barred by exclusivity provision of WCA where employee was not seeking damages for injuries caused by exposure to lead and dust in workplace, which were covered by WCA; instead, employ…

## Opinion text

*21 FLAHERTY, Justice,
dissenting.
I dissent. The exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 77 P.S. § 481(a) states: “The liability of an employer under this act shall be exclusive and in place of any and all other liability to such employes----” (Emphasis added). This language could not be more clear and unambiguous in its limitation of employer liability. We have, until the present, consistently applied this provision in accordance with its plain meaning, thus limiting an employer’s liability in accordance with the legislature’s express mandate. Poyser v. Newman & Co., 514 Pa. 32 , 522 A.2d 548 (1987) (even intentional wrongdoing by employers falls within the exclusivity provision of the Workmen’s Compensation Act). See also Barber v. Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 521 Pa. 29 , 555 A.2d 766 (1989). The present case likewise falls clearly within the scope of immunity granted employers under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The decision of the Superior Court, holding that the present action against the employer can proceed, should be reversed.
NIX, C.J., joins this dissenting opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9763051. Public record. Not legal advice.