SUCEVIC v. JOHNSON, 435 Pa. 128 (1969)

255 A.2d 556

Sucevic v. Johnson, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.March 18, 1969.
June 27, 1969.

Appeals — Final or interlocutory order — Order overruling preliminary objections challenging jurisdiction of court below to entertain action — Exclusive jurisdiction under Workmen’s Compensation Act — Act of March 25, 1925, P. L. 23.

An order overruling preliminary objections challenging the jurisdiction of the court below to entertain an action in trespass on the ground that exclusive jurisdiction is under the Workmen’s Compensation Act is interlocutory and does not involve a jurisdictional question within the meaning of the Act of March 25, 1925, P. L. 23, § 1.

Before BELL, C. J., JONES, COHEN, EAGEN, O’BRIEN, ROBERTS and POMEROY, JJ.

Appeal, No. 66, March T., 1969, from order of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, Jan. T., 1968, No. 3597, in case of George Sucevic v. Albert E. Johnson et al. Appeal quashed.

Trespass for personal injuries.

Defendant’s preliminary objections dismissed, opinion by WESSEL, JR., J. Defendant appealed.

James F. Manley, with him Burns, Manley Little, for appellant.

Ines W. Cordisco, for appellee.

OPINION PER CURIAM, June 27, 1969:

This action in trespass seeks recovery for personal injuries suffered by the plaintiff in the course of his employment with a subcontractor engaged in performing the masonry work in connection with the construction of a building. One of the defendants, the general contractor, filed preliminary objections to the complaint challenging, inter alia, the jurisdiction of the Common Pleas Court to entertain the action. The general

Page 129

contractor contends that exclusive jurisdiction is under The Pennsylvania Workmen’s Compensation Act of June 2, 1915, P. L. 736, as amended, 77 P. S. § 1 et seq. The lower court overruled the preliminary objections and this appeal followed. We quash.

The order appealed from is interlocutory and does not involve a jurisdictional question within the meaning of the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, § 1, 12 Pa.C.S.A. § 672. See Repyneck v. Tarantino, 403 Pa. 300, 169 A.2d 527 (1961).

Appeal quashed.