Sheard v. J.J. DeLuca Co.
92 A.3d 68
Pa. Super. Ct.2014Background
- Late 2007: DeLuca general contractor on a Delaware construction site; Delta Drywall employed Appellee as a laborer.
- Jan 10, 2008: incident—Appellee fell from a third-floor balcony after debris disposal; fall injury to pelvis/lower back.
- Appellee testified no safety training provided by Delta or DeLuca; debris disposal involved throwing drywall through an open balcony.
- Trial: jury found in favor of Appellee with 80% fault to DeLuca, 20% to Appellee; post-trial motions followed.
- Court ultimately granted delay damages to Appellee and denied certain post-trial relief; judgment entered Feb 8, 2012.
- This appeal challenges whether DeLuca is protected by statutory employer immunity and the choice of law/subject-matter jurisdiction; court reverses and remands for judgment in favor of DeLuca.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DeLuca waived statutory employer immunity | DeLuca did not waive; immunity is non-waivable | Waiver occurred due to dilatory post-trial pursuit | Waiver not established; immunity preserved |
| Which law governs the immunity issue (Delaware vs Pennsylvania) | Delaware law applies; DeLuca is a statutory employer there | Pennsylvania law should apply due to project control and contract | Pennsylvania law applies; both statutes yield immunity; no true conflict |
| Whether Appellant is entitled to JNOV on statutory-immunity basis | Delaware/PA immunity precludes tort claim; JNOV appropriate | Immunity should bar only under proper governing law; trial record insufficient | Appellant entitled to JNOV on immunity; judgment reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in Appellant's favor |
| Choice of law governing substantive immunity | Delaware law controls substantive immunity | PA law governs statutory-employee status | PA law applies; Delaware and PA laws yield same immunity result; no true conflict |
Key Cases Cited
- Patton v. Worthington Associates, Inc., 89 A.3d 643 (Pa.2014) (statutory-employer immunity; substantive-law analysis)
- Cordero v. Gulfstream Development Corp., 56 A.3d 1030 (Del.2012) (Delaware statutory scheme; contractor as employer; exclusive remedy)
- LeFlar v. Gulf Creek Indus. Park No. 2, 511 Pa. 574 (Pa.1986) (sovereign/subject-matter immunity; jurisdiction cannot be waived by timing)
- Tulewicz v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transp. Authority, 529 Pa. 588 (Pa.1992) (initial assertion of sovereign immunity; proceedings ongoing allow consideration)
- Holt v. Navarro, 932 A.2d 915 (Pa.Super.2007) (standards for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; review of evidence)
- Shamis v. Moon, 81 A.3d 962 (Pa.Super.2013) (non-waivable issues must be raised timely; waiver considerations)
- Budtel Associates, LP v. Continental Cas. Co., 915 A.2d 640 (Pa.Super.2006) (choice-of-law methodology for foreign law; true conflict/false conflict)
- Griffith v. United Air Lines, Inc., 203 A.2d 796 (Pa.1964) (general framework for choice of law analysis)