Anthony A. BARBER, et al., at No. 16 Sylvester Connor, et al., at No. 17 Robert Fortner, et al., at No. 18 Lois Yentzer, Administratrix of the Estate of Ronald Yentzer, Deceased at No. 19 James A. Rinamon and Dorothy Rinamon at No. 20
v.
PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION, et al., at Nos. 16, 17 and 18 Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc., Dr. Lee B. Grant (Individually and as Medical Director of PPG Industries, Inc.), Charter Consolidated, Ltd., Charter Consolidated Investments, Ltd., Cape Industries, Ltd., Cape Asbestos Fibres, Ltd., and North American Asbestos Corporation at No. 19 Pittsburgh Corning Corporation, PPG Industries, Inc., Charter Consolidated, Ltd., Charter Consolidated Investments, Ltd., Cape Industries, Ltd., and Cape Asbestos Fibres, Ltd., at No. 20
v.
COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania and American Flint Glass Workers Union, AFL-CIO at Nos. 16, 17 and 18.
Appeals of PITTSBURGH CORNING CORPORATION at Nos. 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
Argued September 30, 1988.
Decided March 3, 1989.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Gerald C. Paris, Diane W. Perer, Pamela A. McCallum, Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, Pittsburgh, for appellants.
Stanley W. Greenfield, Greenfield & Murtagh, Pittsburgh, Frank Petramalo, Jr. Gordon & Barnett, George H. Cohen, Washington, D.C., Richard Colasurd, Toledo, Ohio, Richard S. Glasser, H. Seward Lawlor, and Glasser and Glasser, Norfolk, Va., George E. McGrann, Edmund L. Olszewski, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, William M. Wycoff, Thorp, Reed & Armstrong, Pittsburgh, Herbert L.C. Brook, Chicago, Ill., Brian H. Baxter, Deputy Atty. Gen., Dept. of Justice, Pittsburgh, for appellees.
Martin M. Krimsky, Krimsky, Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Mann & Burkett, Philadelphia, for Pennsylvania AFL-CIO, amicus curiae.
Eugene Mattioni, Philadelphia, for Robert and Priscilla McCullough.
Before NIX, C.J., and LARSEN, FLAHERTY, McDERMOTT, ZAPPALA, PAPADAKOS and STOUT, JJ.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
OPINION
NIX, Chief Justice.
This appeal presents the question of whether there exists an exception to the exclusivity provision of the Occupational Disease Act ("ODA")1 for injuries to employees caused by the alleged intentional misconduct of their employer. The appellees, the plaintiffs below, instituted this action against their former and/or current employer2 appellant Pittsburgh Corning...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
