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

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

Shaffer v. Westchester Crane Service, Inc.

This case involves a rigger who suffered serious injuries after falling approximately 20 feet from an I-beam at a construction site in 1967, when a large stone panel suddenly veered. The trial court instructed the jury that contributory negligence was not a defense to the plaintiff's action, which was based on a violation of Labor Law § 241. The majority reversed this judgment, implying that the instruction regarding contributory negligence was erroneous or that it was a valid defense. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Benjamin argued that Labor Law § 241, as it read in 1967, imposed absolute liability on the defendant, thereby precluding contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent critically examined the legislative history of Section 241, emphasizing that amendments in 1962 and 1969 were intended to strengthen worker protections, not to weaken them by introducing contributory negligence.

Rigger InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 241Contributory NegligenceAbsolute LiabilityStatutory InterpretationWorker ProtectionAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionJudicial Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Forest-Fehlhaber

The dissenting opinion, authored by Staley, Jr., J., argues against the majority's conclusion that contributory negligence was not a defense to a violation of Labor Law § 241(6) at the time of the accident. The dissent contends that subdivision 6 imposes a duty of reasonable care, not absolute liability, and therefore, contributory negligence should be a valid defense. It reviews legislative history and prior case law, emphasizing that the pre-1969 statute, identical in terms of liability definition to present subdivision 6, allowed contributory negligence as a defense. The dissent also clarifies a previous gratuitous statement by the court regarding contributory negligence in Frattura v Cozzolino Constr. Corp. The final judgment was modified, reversing the dismissal of the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 241(6) and the third-party complaint, ordering a new trial on those matters, and affirming the judgment as modified.

Contributory NegligenceLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityDuty of Reasonable CareConstruction SafetyExcavation WorkDemolition WorkSafe Place to WorkStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
8
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

Loyd Elec. Co., Inc. v. Millett

Loyd Electric Company appeals a judgment finding it liable for negligence and strict liability in tort for injuries to Henry Millett, caused by an electrical explosion on August 18, 1980. Millett, an employee of Dean Word Construction Company, was injured while working on a switchbox designed and installed by Loyd. Loyd's appeal challenged the jury's finding of no contributory negligence by Millett and the refusal to submit a charge on the employer's contributory negligence, among other points. The appellate court affirmed the jury's finding on Millett's contributory negligence, citing evidence that Millett followed established practices. The court also upheld the refusal to consider the employer's negligence. However, the court found the award for Millett's loss of future earning capacity to be excessive, suggesting a remittitur of $142,916.93. The judgment is conditionally affirmed, pending Millett's acceptance of the remittitur.

Electrical ExplosionNegligenceStrict LiabilityContributory NegligenceRemittiturLoss of Earning CapacityJury VerdictAppellate ReviewTexas LawWorkplace Injury
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1987

Pesce v. City of New York

Paolo Pesce, an employee of Arthur Tickle Engineer Works, Inc., and his wife sued the City of New York and Arthur Tickle for personal injuries Pesce sustained when he fell from a hi-lo vehicle after it hit a pothole on a City street. A jury initially found the City 10% at fault and Arthur Tickle 90% at fault, with Pesce not contributorily negligent. On appeal, the defendants challenged the finding of proximate cause and argued for Pesce's contributory negligence. The appellate court found the trial court's jury instruction on contributory negligence, particularly regarding a subordinate obeying a dangerous direction from a superior, was erroneous and confusing, as it improperly suggested contributory negligence might not be found as a matter of law. Due to this confusing charge, the order was reversed, and a new trial was ordered on the issue of liability.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceProximate CauseMunicipal LiabilityHighway DefectPothole AccidentEmployer LiabilityJury Charge ErrorNew Trial
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fedrau v. Porcelain Insulator Corp.

The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's negligence complaint, as there were issues of fact that should have been decided by a jury. Consequently, the judgment was reversed on the law and facts, and a new trial was granted. A dissenting opinion argued that no cause of action was established, asserting a lack of proof that the plant owner breached any duty owed to the plaintiff. The dissent further contended that the plaintiff, a skilled worker, exhibited contributory negligence by disregarding warnings about the roof's instability.

NegligenceContributory NegligenceForeseeabilityTrial Court ErrorJury QuestionsNew TrialAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyDuty to Warn
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International-Great Northern R. v. Sifuentes

The plaintiff, a section hand for the appellant, was injured on October 5, 1926, while moving a heavy iron roller in Bryan, Texas, resulting in a crushed foot. He alleged negligence by the foreman and sought $1,000 in damages. The appellant pleaded a release signed by the appellee, claiming interstate commerce involvement, assumed risk, contributory negligence, and unavoidable accident. The appellee countered that the release was induced by misinformation from the hospital surgeon and the claim agent regarding his recovery. A jury found the appellant negligent, that negligence was the proximate cause, the plaintiff was misled into signing the release, and awarded $500 in damages, also finding no contributory negligence or unavoidable accident. The trial court entered judgment for the appellee, which the appellant appealed, arguing insufficient evidence to avoid the release, no actionable negligence, and that the parties were engaged in interstate commerce with assumed risk. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence for the jury's findings on the release and negligence, and concluding that the parties were not engaged in interstate commerce at the time of the injury.

NegligenceReleaseFraudMisrepresentationInterstate CommerceAssumed RiskContributory NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' CompensationTexas Law
References
10
Case No. E2012-02392-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2015

Anne Payne v. CSX Transportation, Inc.

Winston Carrol Payne, a railroad employee, developed lung cancer and sued CSX Transportation, Inc. under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to asbestos, diesel exhaust, and radioactive material exposure. After his death, his wife, Anne Payne, continued the lawsuit. The jury found CSX liable for negligence and negligence per se, initially awarding $8.6 million, but later amended it to $3.2 million following post-verdict judicial instruction regarding contributory negligence. The Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed CSX's liability, confirming the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony on causation, but found the post-verdict jury instruction to be erroneous. The case was remanded for a new trial limited solely to determining damages, emphasizing that contributory negligence cannot reduce damages when negligence per se is established under FELA.

Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Railroad NegligenceOccupational Lung CancerAsbestos ExposureDiesel Exhaust ExposureRadioactive Material ExposureContributory NegligenceNegligence Per SeCausation (Toxic Tort)Expert Witness Admissibility
References
83
Showing 1-10 of 4,722 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