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

Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton

Justice Cornyn's concurring opinion in 'Allbritton's Claim' highlights the historical development of causation in American and Texas jurisprudence, criticizing the Court's opinion for conflating foreseeability and cause-in-fact. He advocates for a bifurcated causal analysis, distinguishing between cause-in-fact (using 'but for' and 'substantial factor' tests as factual inquiries) and legal/proximate cause (incorporating foreseeability and policy-based limitations on liability). Applying this framework to Sue Allbritton's injury, Justice Cornyn argues that while the defective pump was a cause-in-fact, neither Union Pump's negligence nor the defective pump was a legal cause or producing cause of her injury. This is because her injury was not foreseeable and did not occur in a natural and continuous sequence from the defect, but rather resulted from a dangerous shortcut taken after the crisis had subsided, placing her outside the scope of products liability protection. Consequently, he concurs in the Court's judgment, which effectively denies Allbritton's claim, but for the distinct reasons outlined in his analysis.

CausationNegligenceProducts LiabilityForeseeabilityCause-in-FactProducing CauseSubstantial FactorTexas Supreme CourtLegal RealismTort Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Light v. Antedeminico

Roger Light, a maintenance worker for Pawling Corp., initiated this action against Anthony Antedeminico d/b/a Tony’s Construction, a subcontractor, seeking damages for personal injuries sustained after falling into an excavated pit. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, initially denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the common-law negligence claim, maintaining that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendant's potential negligence. Upon reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision, prompting the defendant to appeal. The appellate court subsequently reversed the lower court's order, granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing the common-law negligence cause of action. The court reasoned that the defendant successfully demonstrated a lack of sufficient control over the construction site, thereby owing no duty of care to the injured plaintiff, and the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact to counter this.

Personal InjuryCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDuty of CareConstruction SiteSubcontractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityDutchess CountyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell v. Kandler

This case involves an appeal concerning a plaintiff's fall while washing exterior windows of a commercial building, leading to a Labor Law § 202 cause of action. An earlier order had granted defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, finding multiple triable issues of fact. These issues include whether the building owner mandated window cleaning, tacitly approved the plaintiff's work, acknowledged the subtenancy, provided safe interior window washing options, and if the building's anchor hooks met Industrial Code standards. The reversal means the plaintiff's cause of action can proceed.

Window Washing AccidentSummary Judgment ReversalLabor Law ComplianceBuilding Owner LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationsTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimSafety RegulationsPremises Liability
References
1
Case No. NO. 14-05-00624-CV; Trial Court Cause No. 24006*PS03
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2006

Sheila R. Hicks v. Capt. Elliott's Party Boats, Inc.

Appellant Sheila R. Hicks appealed the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of appellee Captain Elliott's Party Boats, Inc. Hicks' negligence claim stemmed from the death of her husband, James Hicks, who suffered a heart attack on the M/V LADY ANNA. She alleged negligence in failing to provide reasonable care, an appropriate response to his condition, and medical treatment. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding Hicks failed to produce sufficient evidence on the element of proximate cause for her negligence claim, specifically concerning whether the captain and crew's actions or lack thereof were the cause-in-fact of James's death. The court also upheld the denial of her motion for new trial, as the supplemental affidavit presented was not before the trial court at the time of the summary judgment.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentProximate CauseWrongful Death ActSurvival StatuteDeath on the High Seas ActMaritime LawMedical NegligenceExpert WitnessAffidavits
References
16
Case No. 2011 NY Slip Op 31707(U)
Regular Panel Decision

Peters v. New School

Plaintiff was injured after falling through a hole in the floor when a wood beam cracked, causing him to fall while removing plywood sheets. The court found that the defendant failed to provide any safety devices, thus entitling the plaintiff to summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1). The defendant's opposition, claiming the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of the accident, was deemed conclusory and insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. As a result, the lower court's denial of summary judgment was unanimously reversed, and the plaintiff's motion was granted.

Labor LawFall from HeightSummary JudgmentSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseProximate CauseAppellate ReversalConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1992

Berly v. D & L Security Services & Investigations, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a take-nothing summary judgment regarding the wrongful death of Anecletas Berly, a Kroger employee, who was killed by a shoplifter during an apprehension attempt by a security guard, Elbert Phillips, employed by D & L Security Services and Investigations, Inc. The appellants, including Berly's family and Transportation Insurance Company (intervening to protect subrogation interest), sued D & L and Phillips for negligence, alleging improper security and apprehension procedures. The trial court granted summary judgment for the appellees, finding no duty and no proximate cause. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case, holding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding foreseeability, proximate cause, and legal privilege. The court found that evidence of prior criminal activity at the store raised a fact issue on duty and that Phillips's alleged violations of security procedures could be a cause-in-fact of Berly's death.

NegligenceWrongful DeathSurvival StatutesSummary Judgment AppealForeseeabilityProximate CauseSecurity Guard LiabilityShoplifting IncidentThird-Party Criminal ActEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2001

Peter v. Nisseli Realty Co.

The defendant, ANI Entertainment, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which had granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Cyril Peter, sustained injuries when a ladder he was standing on during renovation work slid from beneath him, causing a fall. The plaintiffs successfully established a prima facie case for liability. ANI Entertainment, Inc. failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact concerning the injured plaintiff's conduct as a recalcitrant worker or the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Consequently, the Supreme Court's decision to grant the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentLadder AccidentRenovation WorkConstruction AccidentAppellate DecisionLiabilityRecalcitrant WorkerProximate Cause
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

Viti v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

Joseph Viti, suffering from post-traumatic stress due to 9/11, sued The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America under ERISA after his disability benefits claim was denied. Guardian denied the claim and Viti failed to appeal within the six-month administrative period. Viti also applied for and received Social Security disability benefits. The court granted Guardian's motion to dismiss the Third and Fourth Causes of Action, which concerned failure to provide documentation, concluding Guardian was not the proper defendant for those claims. The court denied without prejudice both parties' motions regarding the First and Second Causes of Action, which focused on the timeliness of Viti's lawsuit and the applicability of equitable tolling to contractual limitation periods, referring this matter to Magistrate Judge Dolinger for a hearing on equitable tolling.

ERISADisability BenefitsEquitable TollingStatute of LimitationsMental ImpairmentAdministrative RemediesContractual LimitationsSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFiduciary Duty
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheol Mo Jea v. Cho

Cheol Mo Jea, an employee, sued Sam J. Cho and Mi Rea Cho, owners of Sam’s Food Store, after being shot during a robbery while working. Jea alleged negligence, claiming the store failed to provide a safe workplace by not supplying a door key, adequate exterior lighting, or a second employee. The jury initially found for Jea, but the trial court granted the store's motion for Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV) due to a lack of proximate cause. On appeal, Jea contended there was sufficient evidence to show the store's omissions were the cause-in-fact of his injuries. The appellate court affirmed the JNOV, concluding that Jea failed to present evidence that these measures would have prevented the robbery or his injury, thus failing to establish cause in fact.

Personal InjuryNegligenceWorkplace SafetyRobberyProximate CauseCause in FactJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictLegal SufficiencyPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 01A01-9806-CV-00284
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1999

Hauskins v. Tri-County Electric Membership

Randy Gene Hauskins, a framing carpenter, sustained severe injuries including paraplegia after accidental contact with a 7200-volt power line while working on a new home in Sumner County. His employer, a subcontractor of Coates Construction Company, had begun framing work without notifying Tri County Electric Membership Corporation, the owner of the power lines, contrary to safety statutes. A jury found Mr. Hauskins 100% at fault and Tri County faultless. On appeal, the plaintiffs argued against the admission of evidence concerning the employer's actions due to worker's compensation immunity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, clarifying the distinction between "cause in fact" and "proximate cause" and confirming that an immune employer's actions could be considered to negate a defendant's cause in fact.

Electrical InjuryHigh-Voltage LinesConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation ImmunityCause in FactProximate CauseJury InstructionsNegligence ActionAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 9,497 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