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

E. Williamson Roofing & Sheet Metal Co. v. Town of Parish

The dissenting opinion argues that the majority erred in dismissing a contractor's negligence claim against a town. The dissent contends the town violated Labor Law § 220 (3-a) (a) by failing to determine worker classifications, which resulted in the contractor incurring damages for underpayment of prevailing wages. It asserts that the statute's legislative intent includes protection for contractors and that denying a negligence cause of action leaves the contractor without an effective remedy for reimbursement. Additionally, the dissent argues against dismissing the unjust enrichment claim. It advocates for the order to be modified, denying the defendant's summary judgment motion and granting, in part, the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability in negligence, remitting the matter for further proceedings on damages and contributory negligence.

NegligenceStatutory DutyLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic WorksUnjust EnrichmentSummary JudgmentContributory NegligenceReimbursementLegislative Intent
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. v. Ammean

Richard J. Ammean sued Texas Industrial Contractors, Inc. (Texas Contractors) and Bayer Corporation for a back injury sustained at work. Ammean, an employee of Texas Contractors working on Bayer's premises, had previously received workers' compensation benefits from Texas Contractors' insurer. The appellate court reversed the judgment against Texas Contractors, ruling Ammean's claim was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act due to his receipt of benefits. However, the court affirmed the judgment against Bayer, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that Bayer's negligence, through its supervisory control and its employee forklift driver, proximately caused Ammean's injury. The court also upheld the jury's damage award for future loss of earning capacity against Bayer.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy ProvisionNegligenceBorrowed Servant DoctrinePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJury InstructionsLoss of Earning CapacityEmployer Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. 14-17-00977-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2019

Brazos Contractors Development, Inc. v. Henry Jefferson

Henry Jefferson, an appellee, sued appellant Brazos Contractors Development, Inc. for injuries sustained after an accident at a construction site. A jury returned a verdict for Jefferson, finding Brazos negligent under a contractual duty of control and awarding $2.15 million in damages, including $500,000 for future medical care and $250,000 for future physical impairment. Brazos appealed, challenging the jury charge, the sufficiency of evidence for liability, and the damages awards. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s final judgment, concluding that Brazos contractually retained control over the subcontractor's work, thus owing a duty of care, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's findings on negligence and damages.

Construction AccidentNegligenceContractual ControlIndependent Contractor LiabilityJury VerdictDamages AwardFuture Medical ExpensesPhysical ImpairmentSufficiency of EvidenceProximate Cause
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Corpus Christi v. Acme Mechanical Contractors, Inc.

Amber Electric Company and Acme Mechanical Contractors, Incorporated, subcontractors, sued the City of Corpus Christi, the owner of a public building project, after the prime contractor, La Man Construction, abandoned the project and its payment bond was discovered to be fraudulent. The subcontractors sought recovery from the City on theories of quantum meruit, governmental taking without compensation, and the City's breach of a statutory duty by negligently approving a bogus payment bond. The trial court found in favor of the subcontractors. On appeal, the court reversed and rendered judgment against the subcontractors on the governmental taking and breach of statutory duty claims, finding no compensable claim or statutory liability against the City. The quantum meruit claim was reversed and remanded for a new trial, as there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the City was reasonably notified that the subcontractors expected payment directly from the City.

Quantum MeruitGovernmental TakingStatutory DutyPayment BondSubcontractor LiabilityPrime Contractor DefaultSurety Bond FraudPublic Works ContractConstruction LawNegligence
References
27
Case No. 04-12-00474-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

TOKA General Contractors and Moore Sorrento, LLC v. Wm. Rigg Company

TOKA General Contractors and Moore Sorrento, LLC sued Wm. Rigg Company for negligence, gross negligence, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty after an insurance agent allegedly failed to timely notify carriers of a claim, leading to an arbitration award against Moore Sorrento. The trial court granted Rigg's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), rendering a take-nothing judgment. On appeal, the court affirmed the JNOV. It concluded that statutory reductions and settlement credits extinguished Moore Sorrento's recovery and that attorney's fees awarded for prosecuting claims against the insurance carriers were not recoverable as damages under Texas law. The court also found no error in the trial court's refusal to submit breach of fiduciary duty claims to the jury, citing insufficient evidence of a formal agency relationship.

Negligence LawInsurance Agent LiabilityJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictSettlement Credit CalculationAttorney's Fees RecoveryBreach of Fiduciary DutyAgency RelationshipTexas Civil Practice and Remedies CodeAppellate ProcedureTort Law
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2004

Chelsea Associates, LLC v. Laquila-Pinnacle

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance company's duty to defend and indemnify plaintiffs, a general contractor and related entities, in an underlying personal injury action. The injured worker, an employee of a subcontractor, sued the general contractor group after tripping at the job site entrance. The initial court denied summary judgment to the general contractor group, citing questions of fact regarding their negligence and whether the worker's injury arose out of the work. The appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the general contractor group was an additional insured under the subcontractor's policy. The court found that the injury, occurring en route to work, arose out of the work as a matter of law, and that the general contractor's negligence was immaterial to the additional insured endorsement. Consequently, the insurer was obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs and pay the settlement amount of the underlying action.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured EndorsementDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPersonal InjuryGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementWorkers' InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 1998

Mills v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiff, a telephone linesman employed by Contel, suffered an electrical shock injury while working on a utility pole, leading him to sue Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NIMO) under various Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court modified the order by granting summary judgment to Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc., dismissing all Labor Law claims against them, as they were not deemed an owner, general contractor, or supervisor of the plaintiff's work. However, a common-law negligence claim against Smith remains. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion against NIMO, citing factual questions about whether the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. The court also affirmed the denial of NIMO's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the belatedly cited safety regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.16. Finally, the court rejected NIMO's argument that the action was precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions based on a purported joint venture. The order was modified to dismiss the Labor Law claims against Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and otherwise affirmed.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Recalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentUtility Pole AccidentElectrical ShockConstruction AccidentJoint Venture DefenseNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,064 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