CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hakim v. Armstrong Rubber Co.

Joseph Hakim initiated a negligence action seeking damages for personal injuries after a forklift tire he was changing exploded. He alleged that Armstrong Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the tire, Firestone Tire & Rubber Company negligently designed and manufactured the wheel rim, and Clark Equipment Company negligently manufactured and failed to inspect the forklift. Armstrong and Firestone successfully moved for summary judgment by presenting evidence that they did not manufacture the specific tire or rim involved, which Hakim failed to rebut with sufficient evidence. Conversely, Clark Equipment Company's motion for summary judgment was denied due to its failure to provide any evidence disproving its involvement in the forklift's manufacture or inspection.

Forklift accidentTire explosionProduct liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceManufacturing defectDesign defectInspection failureHearsay evidencePrima facie case
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2008

Stalker v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

George R. Stalker died from a truck tire 'zipper rupture' while inflating it. His widow, the plaintiff, filed a products liability lawsuit against the tire manufacturer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, and the retreader, Rua & Sons, Inc., alleging design defect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a design defect and that the decedent, with over 20 years of experience, was already aware of the specific dangers and proper safety precautions related to tire inflation, thus negating the failure to warn claim.

Products LiabilityTire ExplosionZipper RuptureDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExperienced WorkerSafety PrecautionsExpert Witness Testimony
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2000

Briggs v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs James Briggs and Harry Gibbs, representing a proposed class, sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, alleging unjust enrichment due to Goodyear's refusal to comply with a prior Release and Settlement Agreement. This agreement, approved by the court in 1998, mandated Goodyear provide a bladder cancer surveillance program for former employees in exchange for plaintiffs dropping claims. Plaintiffs sought a constructive trust on Goodyear's assets, arguing legal remedies were inadequate for the program's unpredictable, long-term costs. The court granted Goodyear's motion to dismiss, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it did not retain jurisdiction over the previous agreement, and plaintiffs failed to establish diversity jurisdiction regarding the amount in controversy. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a constructive trust because a valid contract existed, precluding such equitable claims, and they did not adequately allege a confidential relationship or a proper transfer of an identifiable res.

Unjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyClass Action SettlementSettlement Agreement EnforcementAncillary JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1) DismissalRule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1994

Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs Dorothy J. and Louis Kowalski, Jr. sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for negligence and strict liability, alleging Mrs. Kowalski contracted bladder cancer from ortho-toluidine exposure via her husband's work clothes from Goodyear's Niagara Falls plant. Goodyear sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred, the strict liability claim was undefined, and no duty was owed to Mrs. Kowalski. The court denied Goodyear's motions, ruling that the federally required commencement date under CERCLA preempted the state statute of limitations. The court also found that plaintiffs adequately alleged Goodyear owed a duty of care due to the foreseeable harm from secondary exposure to a known dangerous substance, and that the strict liability claim required further evidence.

negligencestrict liabilitystatute of limitationsCERCLASARAhazardous substancestoxic exposurebladder canceroccupational diseasesecondary exposure
References
19
Case No. CV-23-0674
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2024

Matter of Winkelman v. Sumitomo Rubber USA

Claimant Ronald Winkelman sustained work-related injuries in 2000 and 2018 while working for Sumitomo Rubber USA. After the second injury, he sought treatment and was found to have a temporary disability, leading to a note with lifting restrictions. When the employer couldn't accommodate, he was told not to return. He subsequently worked per diem jobs and filed for awards. The carrier suspended payments and alleged a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation, arguing claimant made false statements about his activities and employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding that no violation occurred and that claimant was entitled to reduced earnings, concluding that observed activities were not proven to exceed restrictions and sporadic assistance to his spouse was not an intentional misrepresentation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationTemporary DisabilityReduced EarningsFalse StatementMisrepresentationIndependent Medical ExaminationSurveillance VideoLabor Market AttachmentAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kanney v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiff's decedent, an employee of Niagara Coating Services, Inc., died after falling from an exterior scaffold erected by Oldman Boiler Works, Inc. on property owned by The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company. The court properly granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Goodyear under Labor Law § 240 (1), citing Goodyear's nondelegable duty as property owner to provide proper protection. However, the court erred in finding Oldman liable under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as Oldman lacked supervisory control over the decedent's work. The court correctly denied Oldman's summary judgment motion regarding common-law negligence, as Oldman failed to prove it owed no duty or that the scaffold was defect-free. Finally, the court erred in granting Goodyear's cross-motion for contractual indemnification from Oldman, as Goodyear did not establish its entitlement under the contract terms.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law negligenceProperty owner liabilityContractor liabilityNondelegable duty
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wood v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

Anthony N. Wood, severely injured while employed by the Town of Stillwater Highway Department, settled a third-party action against Firestone Tire and Rubber Company for $1.1 million. The workers' compensation carrier, Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan, had a lien of over $63,000 for compensation and medical payments. Wood moved to apportion legal fees and expenses against the carrier's lien, arguing that the carrier's equitable share should consider the present value of estimated future benefits it would no longer have to pay, citing *Matter of Kelly v State Ins. Fund*. The Saratoga County Self-Insured Plan opposed, disputing the calculation of future benefits and arguing for consideration of potential future death benefits. The court, guided by *Kelly*, found the respondent's arguments lacked merit and applied a formula that included the lien amount plus the discounted value of future payments saved by the carrier. The court determined an equitable apportionment of $114,112.67, concluding that the offset exceeded the carrier's lien due to the substantial benefits the carrier received from the extinguishment of future obligations.

ApportionmentLegal FeesThird-Party ActionLien OffsetFuture Benefits CalculationEquitable ApportionmentSettlement ProceedsEconomist Expert WitnessPermanent DisabilityCarrier Liability
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boys Clubs of America v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

This case concerns a motion to transfer venue filed by Defendant Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company against Plaintiff Boys Club of America. BCA sued Goodyear for alleged defects in a roof installed at its Texas service center, claiming breach of contract, warranty, and negligence. Goodyear sought to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the majority of operative facts, witnesses, and documents were located in Texas. The court, presided over by Judge Edelstein, examined factors such as the location of operative facts, witnesses, convenience of parties, and plaintiff's choice of forum. Ultimately, the motion was granted, with the court finding that the interests of justice and convenience strongly favored a transfer to the Northern District of Texas.

Motion to Transfer Venue28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Convenience of PartiesConvenience of WitnessesInterest of JusticePlaintiff's Choice of ForumOperative FactsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 54 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational