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

Pilgrim's Pride Corp. v. Cernat

This case involves an appeal by Pilgrim's Pride Corporation concerning a rear-end collision. The plaintiffs, David Cernat and Joseph Ciupitu, sustained injuries when their towed truck was hit by a Pilgrim's Pride vehicle. The jury found both parties partially responsible. The appeals court modified the trial court's judgment, ruling that the initial calculation of damages under comparative negligence statutes was erroneous and should be reduced based on the defendant's liability percentage. However, the court affirmed the sufficiency of evidence supporting the jury's awards for the plaintiffs' lost earning capacity and future medical damages.

Comparative negligencePersonal injuryMotor vehicle accidentRear-end collisionDamagesLost earning capacityFuture medical expensesFactual sufficiencyLegal sufficiencyTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siragusa v. State

The court unanimously affirmed the dismissal of claims made under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The appellate court agreed with the trial court's finding that the accident resulted from the claimant's negligence in driving off the shoulder, rather than any negligence on the part of the State. It was noted that claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) are subject to the defense of comparative negligence. Furthermore, Labor Law § 240 (1) was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not involve risks associated with falling from an elevated work site or being struck by falling objects, clarifying that a highway's contour does not constitute an elevated work platform.

NegligenceComparative NegligenceLabor Law 200Labor Law 240Labor Law 241Elevated Work SiteHighway AccidentWorker SafetyAffirmationAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kroger Co. v. Keng

Sonja Keng sued her employer, Kroger Company, a non-subscriber to workers' compensation insurance, for work-related injuries after falling from a ladder. Keng alleged Kroger's negligence caused her injuries, while Kroger sought to introduce a comparative-responsibility question to the jury, arguing Keng's own conduct contributed to the incident. The trial court refused Kroger's request, finding Kroger negligent and awarding Keng damages. The court of appeals affirmed, concluding the comparative-responsibility statute does not apply to Keng's claim and that non-subscribing employers are prohibited from using employee negligence as a defense. The Supreme Court of Texas affirmed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that Texas Labor Code § 406.033 precludes a finding of contributory negligence, which is a prerequisite for determining comparative responsibility, thus denying a non-subscribing employer a jury question on an employee's alleged comparative responsibility.

Comparative NegligenceContributory NegligenceWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryStatutory ConstructionCommon-Law DefensesJury QuestionTexas Labor CodeProximate Cause
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schley v. Structural Metals, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning a negligence claim. W. G. Schley and the estate of Dalton H. Brandt sued Structural Metals, Inc. (SMI) after a crane boom, operated by Commercial Contracting Company employees (Schley and Brandt), struck high voltage lines on SMI's premises, resulting in one death and severe injuries. The core legal issues revolved around SMI's duty to maintain safe premises, provide warnings, and whether the 'no-duty' concept of Delhi-Taylor v. Henry survived the adoption of comparative negligence in Texas and the Supreme Court's Parker v. Highland Park, Inc. decision. The appellate court found that the Delhi-Taylor doctrine was set aside by Parker and that SMI had a duty to request the lines be placed underground, reversing the trial court's take-nothing judgment for SMI.

NegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorHigh Voltage LinesCrane AccidentElectrocutionComparative NegligenceNo-Duty RuleDelhi-Taylor DoctrineParker Decision
References
24
Case No. 55 AD3d 1050
Regular Panel Decision

Ayers v. O'Brien

Plaintiff, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, was involved in an accident while making a U-turn to pursue a speeder, activating his emergency lights. He was struck by defendant Karin A. O’Brien's decelerating vehicle. After collecting workers' compensation, plaintiff sued O'Brien for negligence. Defendants asserted a comparative negligence defense. Plaintiff moved to dismiss this defense, arguing his conduct as an emergency vehicle operator should be subject to a "reckless disregard" standard under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 (e), thereby precluding his own negligence from consideration. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Court reversed, holding that § 1104 (e) is a shield protecting emergency operators from civil liability to others, not a sword allowing them to avoid comparative negligence when seeking damages for their own injuries against a bystander. The court concluded such claims should be decided under ordinary comparative negligence principles, reinstating the defendants' affirmative defense.

Emergency vehiclesReckless disregard standardComparative negligenceVehicle and Traffic LawPolice officer liabilityBystander liabilityWorkers' compensationAppellate reviewStatutory interpretationTort law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 1999

Bauer v. Female Academy of Sacred Heart

Plaintiff, an employee of ESS, sustained serious injuries after falling while cleaning windows of a building owned by the defendant. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 202, and 240 (1). After an earlier appeal dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the case proceeded to trial on the Labor Law § 202 claim. The Supreme Court instructed the jury that defendant and ESS were liable due to a breach of their statutory duty under Labor Law § 202, considering it an absolute liability statute and not allowing comparative fault. The jury returned a verdict of $3,351,933 in favor of the plaintiff. Defendant and ESS appealed, contending that Labor Law § 202, as amended in 1970, does not impose absolute liability but rather a violation of regulations under it constitutes some evidence of negligence, thus comparative negligence should apply. The appellate court agreed with the defendant and ESS, holding that a violation of Industrial Board regulations pursuant to the 1970 amendment to Labor Law § 202 is only some evidence of negligence, and therefore, comparative negligence should be considered by the jury.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityComparative NegligenceStatutory DutyIndustrial Board of AppealsWorker SafetyJudgment AppealThird-Party ActionCommon-Law Negligence
References
5
Case No. 01-23-00704-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Industrial Specialists, LLC v. Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP

This case addresses whether an indemnitee can recover from its indemnitor the portion of a settlement attributable to other defendants under a comparative indemnity scheme, even if the indemnitee was also found negligent. Industrial Specialists, LLC (Appellant) was sued by Blanchard Refining Company LLC and Marathon Petroleum Company LP (Appellees) for breach of a contractual indemnity agreement. A fire at a refinery injured employees, leading to a $104 million settlement by Marathon and other contractors, where Marathon paid $86 million. The jury found Marathon 38% negligent and Industrial 17% negligent, among others. The core issue is the enforceability of the indemnity provision under the express negligence doctrine, specifically concerning comparative indemnity. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the indemnity provision failed to expressly provide for comparative indemnity, thus rendering it unenforceable as a matter of law.

Contractual IndemnityExpress Negligence DoctrineComparative IndemnityOil and Gas IndustryRefinery FirePersonal Injury ClaimsSettlement AgreementsBreach of ContractTexas LawAppellate Court Decision
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1989

Trevino v. Lightning Laydown, Inc.

This case involves a wrongful death and survival action following the death of Jose Trevino in a collision caused by a detached trailer. The appellants sued International Bank of Commerce (IBC) and several other defendants, who settled. A jury found IBC five percent at fault due to negligence and conscious indifference, but declined to award exemplary damages, while the settling defendants were ninety-five percent at fault. The trial court limited IBC's liability to five percent of actual damages. On appeal, the appellants argued that IBC's gross negligence should make it liable for the entire damages, contending that gross negligence is a distinct cause of action not subject to comparative negligence statutes. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that gross negligence is not a "theory other than negligence" within the meaning of Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Co. and that the comparative negligence framework was correctly applied to reduce IBC's liability.

wrongful deathsurvival actionnegligencegross negligencecomparative negligenceexemplary damagesMary Carter settlementjoint tortfeasorsproduct liabilityappellate decision
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,957 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