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
Aug 06, 2015

Sidney B. Hale, Jr. v. City of Bonham

The document comprises two appendices related to Texas law. Appendix A presents Chapter 101 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, known as the Texas Tort Claims Act, which addresses governmental liability for torts, defining terms, outlining liability for governmental units, setting limitations on liability, and detailing procedural aspects. Appendix B includes sections from Chapter 271 of the Texas Local Government Code, concerning purchasing and contracting authority for municipalities, counties, and other local governments, with a focus on definitions, waivers of immunity for breach of contract, and limitations on adjudication awards.

Texas lawGovernmental immunityTort claimsMunicipal liabilityLocal governmentPurchasing authorityContracting authorityStatutory interpretationSovereign immunityCivil practice and remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heritage v. Van Patten

The case addresses whether Labor Law section 241 can impose liability on a landowner who is also a coemployee. The court determined that such an imposition of liability would contradict subdivision 6 of section 29 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which establishes workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy for injuries caused by a coemployee's negligence. It was emphasized that regardless of his status as the property owner, Van Patten remained a coemployee in all employment-related matters with the plaintiff. The decision draws parallels to Vehicle and Traffic Law section 388, asserting that statutes creating derivative liability do not negate the coemployee exclusivity defense, thereby barring a derivative action dependent on coemployee negligence.

Coemployee ImmunityLabor LawPremises LiabilityExclusive RemedyStatutory InterpretationDerivative LiabilityVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burke v. Torres

Plaintiff was injured in a car accident while a passenger, driven by coemployee Martinez. His employer, J U & T Management, Inc., was uninsured for workers' compensation. After an initial workers' compensation award was vacated, plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit. Defendant Martinez sought to include a workers' compensation defense, arguing exclusive remedy, which was granted by Special Term. Plaintiff then moved to strike this defense, contending Martinez, as a coemployee, could not use it given the employer's lack of insurance. Special Term granted plaintiff's motion. This court reversed, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6) provides absolute immunity to coemployees from tort liability, even if the employer is uninsured, as the injured employee has recourse through the uninsured employers' fund against the employer.

Workers' Compensation LawCoemployee ImmunityUninsured EmployerExclusive RemedyVicarious LiabilityPersonal Injury ActionAutomobile AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erwin v. Rose

This case addresses the liability of a municipality and its agents under the Governmental Tort Liability Act, as well as the liability of an underinsured motorist carrier. Ms. Erwin's parents filed a wrongful death action after their daughter was killed in a high-speed chase involving Deputy Mike Rose of Maury County. The court apportioned fault between Deputy Rose and Tracy Joe Lovell, limiting Maury County's liability to $130,000 and dismissing claims against Deputy Rose. The court affirmed the dismissal of the claim against the underinsured motorist carrier, Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., finding that payments from other tort-feasors reduce the carrier's coverage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decisions on municipal and agent liability and the dismissal of the underinsured motorist claim, but reversed the award of prejudgment interest as it exceeded the statutory liability limit for the municipality. A petition to rehear was subsequently overruled.

Governmental Tort Liability ActUnderinsured Motorist CoverageWrongful DeathHigh-Speed ChasePolice MisconductMunicipal LiabilityDeputy Sheriff LiabilityPrejudgment InterestInsurance Policy LimitsCivil Rights Violations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Terrell

This case addresses whether the State of Texas is liable under the Texas Tort Claims Act for personal injuries caused by a highway patrol officer's negligent operation of a motor vehicle. James M. Terrell and Security National Insurance Company sued the State after Officer White's patrol car collided with Terrell's vehicle during a radar operation in Runnels County. The District Court granted summary judgment for the State, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment, holding that the State is subject to liability if the officer's negligence occurred within the scope of employment and outside an emergency. The Court clarified that while policy-making decisions regarding police protection are immune, negligence in executing those policies can lead to liability under the Act.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental LiabilityPolice NegligenceMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationEmergency ExemptionPolicy DecisionsDiscretionary FunctionScope of Employment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackman v. Fisher

The plaintiff, a coemployee of Steven Fisher, Sherry Frank, and Jean M. Murphy, and an employee of Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. (CBS), sued for libel after allegedly being reassigned to a less prestigious position due to a libelous memorandum published by the coemployees. The plaintiff had previously recovered workers' compensation benefits from CBS. Special Term granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against all defendants, reasoning that the plaintiff's election to receive workers' compensation benefits precluded a common law action for intentional torts against the employer and coemployees. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal against CBS, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which makes workers' compensation the exclusive remedy against an employer. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal against the coemployees, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) does not bar actions for intentional torts against coemployees. Therefore, summary judgment was denied as to Fisher, Frank, and Murphy, and the action against them was severed.

LibelIntentional TortWorkers' CompensationExclusive RemedyCoemployee LiabilitySummary Judgment AppealAppellate ReversalJudgment ModificationAction Severance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawley v. Hamilton County

Noel Crawley, a corrections officer for the Hamilton County Sheriff's Department, sustained injuries at work and received compensation under Hamilton County's Civil Service Policy, which purported to be an exclusive remedy. Crawley subsequently filed a negligence suit against Hamilton County under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA). Hamilton County argued its policy exempted it from GTLA liability, but the trial court initially granted summary judgment in its favor. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, stating that the county could not exempt itself from tort liability. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding that a county not opted into workers' compensation statutes cannot use an internal policy to avoid GTLA liability for work-related injuries, as such policies are void against public policy.

Governmental Tort Liability ActExclusive RemedyWorkers' Compensation Opt-OutCounty LiabilityOn-the-Job InjuryCivil Service PolicySovereign ImmunityPublic PolicyNegligence LawTennessee Supreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seebeck v. Finetta

Roseanne Seebeck, an injured plaintiff, filed a case against coemployees after being struck by an automobile during the course of mutual employment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, holding that workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy for the plaintiff's injuries. This decision was supported by several referenced cases, including Matter of Husted v Seneca Steel Serv. and Kunze v Jones. Presiding Justice Mangano, along with Justices Bracken, Lawrence, and Rosenblatt, concurred with the judgment.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentCoemployee LiabilityAutomobile AccidentEmployment InjuryNew York LawAppellate DecisionWorkplace InjuryTort Law
References
5
Case No. M2004-01910-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2005

Rickey W. Pendleton v. The Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

Rickey W. Pendleton sued the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County for injuries sustained during his arrest by metropolitan police officers, alleging assault and battery and vicarious liability through respondeat superior. The trial court granted summary judgment for the government, ruling that a standalone respondeat superior claim was insufficient under the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) for intentional torts, requiring a separate negligence claim against the governmental entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, holding that the GTLA mandates a direct showing of negligence by the governmental entity for intentional torts committed by its employees, and Pendleton failed to assert such a claim against the Metropolitan Government.

Governmental Tort Liability ActRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentIntentional TortsNegligenceAssault and BatteryPolice MisconductGovernmental ImmunityTennessee LawMunicipal Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 5,920 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