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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1999

Rosen v. New York Zoological Society

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision. The case involved a plaintiff, a volunteer worker, who was injured while navigating a steep, muddy riverbank. The plaintiff argued that the injury resulted from a latent or concealed condition, breaching the defendant's duty. However, the appellate court found that such natural terrain with foreseeable uneven spots does not engender a duty on the part of the defendant. It held that a landowner owes no duty to warn of or prevent danger from plainly and obviously dangerous natural conditions, thereby granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner DutyNatural ConditionsObvious DangerVolunteer InjuryRiverbank IncidentAppellate ReversalDismissal of ComplaintBronx County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abbadessa v. Ulrik Holding Ltd.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant, a property owner, was negligent in maintaining a dangerous sidewalk. The injured plaintiff, Jerome Abbadessa, a sanitation worker, slipped on a concealed refrigerator shelf while working. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted the defendant's motion, and dismissed the complaint, ruling that a worker confronting obvious employment hazards with available resources to proceed safely cannot hold others responsible for self-inflicted injuries due to incautious actions.

personal injurysummary judgmentnegligenceproperty owner liabilitysanitation worker injuryworkplace safetyassumption of riskconcealed hazardappellate procedureKings County court
References
3
Case No. 14-05-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2006

John Johnson and Sherilyn Johnson and One Beacon Insurance Inc v. Texas Genco L.P, Incorrectly Named as Reliant Energy Inc.

This appeal concerns the granting of a no-evidence summary judgment against the appellants, John and Sherilyn Johnson, in a premises liability case. John Johnson sustained injuries from a fall caused by a concealed hole on the defendant's, Texas Genco, L.P.'s, premises while working as an invitee. The Johnsons, along with One Beacon Insurance, Inc., argued that Texas Genco had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The appellate court found that the Johnsons provided sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's constructive notice. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

premises liabilitysummary judgmentconstructive noticeinviteedangerous conditionnegligenceTexas lawfall injuryemployer liabilityappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamb v. Shell Chemical Company

This is a death action case where Edward N. Lamb died from an electrical shock while working at a chemical plant construction site. His survivors sued Shell Chemical Company, Shell Oil Company, and H. K. Ferguson Company. The jury found Shell not negligent for energizing the alarm circuit, but found Fisk Electric Company (Lamb's employer and subcontractor to Ferguson) negligent for connecting the wire. The appellate court reversed and remanded the judgment for Shell and H.K. Ferguson, finding that the jury's verdict was not affirmatively wrong regarding Shell's negligence, but that the trial court erred in instructing a verdict for H.K. Ferguson. The court also found error in allowing Fisk Electric Company six peremptory challenges without showing antagonism to Ferguson. The case highlights issues of contractor duty, concealed dangers, and jury challenges.

Death ActionElectrical AccidentPremises LiabilityGeneral Contractor DutySubcontractor NegligencePeremptory ChallengesDirected VerdictContractual IndemnityWorkers' CompensationConstruction Safety
References
21
Case No. 97 Civ. 4550
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers Local 17 Health & Benefit Fund v. Philip Morris, Inc.

Plaintiffs, employee benefit trust funds, filed parallel class-action lawsuits alleging fraud and tortious conduct by several domestic cigarette manufacturers and related defendants, including B.A.T. Industries p.l.c. (BAT Industries) and Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corporation. The core allegation is that defendants concealed crucial information about smoking dangers, causing plaintiffs to incur millions in medical benefits for beneficiaries. BAT Industries moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court examined grounds for jurisdiction under New York's long-arm statute (CPLR § 302(a)), RICO statutes, a conspiracy theory, and an alter-ego theory. It found that plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case for personal jurisdiction over BAT Industries, noting that many alleged conspiratorial activities predated BAT Industries' formation in 1976 and that no sufficient links or control were demonstrated. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, but with leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint by September 30, 1998, to plead facts that could support jurisdiction under a conspiracy theory.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissLong-Arm StatuteConspiracy TheoryAlter-Ego TheoryRICOTobacco LitigationClass ActionFraudEmployee Benefit Funds
References
74
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1986

Goslin v. La Mora

Plaintiff's decedent was fatally injured while setting up defendant Nancy L. La Mora's mobile home, which slipped from its jacks and crushed him. The wrongful death action was based on theories of the mobile home being a dangerous instrumentality, the site constituting a dangerous condition imposing a higher duty of care on the landowner, and the landowner's failure to provide a safe workplace. The court found that an unelevated mobile home is not a dangerous instrumentality, and while on jacks it could be, the decedent's voluntary work placed it in that position. The court also determined that the landowner was not expected to recognize the falling trailer as a hidden danger, and the difficulties of balancing it were obvious to the decedent, who had prior experience. Finally, the contention regarding failure to provide a safe workplace was rejected because the decedent was a volunteer, not an employee protected by Labor Law.

Wrongful DeathMobile Home AccidentLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionDangerous InstrumentalityVolunteer WorkerPremises LiabilityNegligenceSafe Workplace DutyDuty of Care
References
5
Case No. M2018-00132-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2018

Darrin M. Dixon v. Alan Wayne Chrisco

Purchasers Darrin and Teresa Dixon sued sellers Alan and Teddi Chrisco alleging intentional misrepresentation, a violation of the Tennessee Residential Property Disclosure Act (TRPDA), and fraudulent concealment concerning a railroad right-of-way and a planned second track on the property. The trial court dismissed misrepresentation and TRPDA claims but granted judgment to the Dixons for fraudulent concealment of the second track, awarding $15,000. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the fraudulent concealment claim related to the right-of-way's extent, citing the purchasers' failure to exercise ordinary diligence. However, the court reversed the $15,000 damages award for the fraudulent concealment of the railroad expansion, finding insufficient proof of the property's actual diminished value at the time of the transaction.

Real PropertyFraudulent ConcealmentMisrepresentationTennessee Residential Property Disclosure ActRight-of-WayRailroad ExpansionCaveat EmptorProperty ValueDamagesAppellate Review
References
24
Case No. 92-CV-1085
Regular Panel Decision

Capriotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff Salvatore Capriotti, a yardmaster for Conrail, suffered heart problems exacerbated by stressful work conditions and increased responsibilities after staff cutbacks. He sued Conrail under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for negligent infliction of emotional distress and a direct physical injury claim. Conrail renewed its motion for summary judgment based on the Supreme Court's reversal in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall and Carlisle, which established the "zone of danger" test for emotional distress claims under FELA. The court found Capriotti's claim to be essentially the same as Carlisle's — "too much work, not too dangerous work" — and therefore, he did not meet the "zone of danger" requirement. The court also rejected his claim under the Hours of Service Act, stating that FELA parameters still apply, requiring proof of being in the zone of danger. Consequently, Conrail's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Capriotti's complaint was dismissed.

FELASummary JudgmentEmotional DistressZone of DangerStressful Work ConditionsHeart ConditionHours of Service ActNegligence Per SeRailroad Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 866 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