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. 14-02-00627-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2004

Coastal Terminal Operators and James W. McPherson v. Essex Crane Rental Corp.

This case involves a breach-of-contract dispute where Essex Crane Rental Corp., an equipment lessor, secured summary judgment against Coastal Terminal Operators and its president, James W. McPherson, who was held liable under a personal guarantee. The appellate court upheld the trial court's interpretation of McPherson's guarantee agreement, deeming it unambiguous, and dismissed arguments concerning lack of consideration, mutual mistake, failure of condition precedent, and unconscionability. However, the court found a genuine issue of material fact regarding the reasonableness of attorney's fees awarded to Essex. Consequently, the appellate court reversed and remanded only the attorney's fees issue for further proceedings, affirming all other aspects of the trial court's judgment.

Breach of ContractPersonal GuaranteeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract AmbiguityLack of ConsiderationMutual MistakeCondition PrecedentUnconscionabilityAttorney's Fees
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Armoneit v. Elliott Crane Service, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal arising from a construction accident where Dennis Armoneit, an employee of Superior Framing, fell from a roof due to the alleged negligent operation of a crane rented from Elliott Crane Service, Inc. The trial court initially granted partial summary judgment, holding Elliott Crane vicariously liable for its crane operator and declaring an indemnity agreement between Elliott Crane and Fox Ridge Homes, Inc. (the general contractor) void. On appeal, the court reversed the finding of vicarious liability, determining that the crane operator might be a 'borrowed servant' of Fox Ridge or Superior Framing, thus requiring a factual determination. However, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision that the indemnity provision was void as contrary to public policy under Tenn.Code Ann. § 62-6-123, irrespective of liability insurance. The case was subsequently remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Respondeat SuperiorVicarious LiabilityBorrowed Servant DoctrineIndemnity AgreementPublic PolicySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentCrane OperationWorkers' Compensation
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szarewicz v. Alboro Crane Rental Corp.

The interlocutory judgment from Supreme Court, Kings County, favoring the plaintiff against Alboro Crane Rental Corp. on liability, was unanimously reversed and vacated on appeal. The plaintiff, a structural steel worker employed by Harrod Steel Erectors, was injured when knocked off a steel beam, allegedly due to a negligent crane operator. A key issue was whether an employer-employee relationship existed between the operator and Alboro, which owned and leased the crane to Harrod. The court found insufficient evidence to establish this relationship, noting the operator was not on Alboro's payroll and Alboro lacked control over his work. Consequently, the complaint against Alboro was dismissed, as liability could not be based on the rental agreement or control theory.

Crane accidentliabilityemployer-employee relationshipvicarious liabilitynegligenceleased equipmentappellate reviewjudgment reversalstructural steel workercrane operator control
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crane Rental Service v. Rutledge

Rutledge, a crane operator, was severely injured after being struck by a car while returning to his employer's premises to retrieve work-related items or lunch. The Chancellor ruled that the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, resulting in permanent total disability. The employer, Crane Rental Service, and its insurance carrier appealed this decision. The Supreme Court affirmed the Chancellor's decree, finding sufficient evidence to support the inference that Rutledge was engaged in employment-related activity. The Court also applied the 'street risk exception,' deeming the injury compensable due to the employment occasioning the use of the street.

Workmen's CompensationAccidental InjuryScope of EmploymentStreet Risk ExceptionPrima Facie CasePermanent Total DisabilityAppellate ReviewAffirmation of DecreeInference from Circumstantial EvidenceEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2000

Jaeger v. Costanzi Crane, Inc.

Plaintiff Herman Jaeger, an employee of Jett Industries, Inc., was injured at a bridge construction site in December 1996 while attempting to straighten a rubber bearing plate as a 36-ton concrete beam was being lowered by two cranes. One of the cranes was provided by defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. Plaintiff and his wife commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendant Costanzi Crane, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court found that plaintiff's injuries were not caused by a malfunction or lack of a protective device, thus the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim failed. Furthermore, since defendant had no supervisory control over the activities that led to the injury, the claims under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) also failed. The order was modified, granting summary judgment to Costanzi Crane, Inc. and dismissing the complaint against it.

Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentCrane OperationWorkplace SafetyNegligenceSupervisory ControlGravity-Related AccidentThird-Party LiabilityInjury ClaimBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. No. 20-0505
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2022

in Re Eagleridge Operating, Llc

In this premises-defect case, Eagleridge Operating, LLC sought mandamus relief after a trial court struck its designation of Aruba Petroleum, Inc. as a responsible third party. Eagleridge contended that Aruba, a former wellsite owner-operator, held continuing responsibility for injuries from a burst gas pipeline under an independent contractor theory, despite having conveyed its ownership interest. The Supreme Court of Texas denied the petition, affirming the lower courts' decision that Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Jenkins was controlling. The Court reiterated that a property owner acts solely as an owner when improving its own property, and responsibility for premises defects generally transfers with the conveyance of ownership. The Court concluded that Aruba's compensation as operator of record did not transform its role from owner to independent contractor, and thus its responsibility terminated upon conveyance.

Premises liabilityMandamusResponsible third partyProperty ownershipOil and gas lawIndependent contractorOwner-operatorTexas Supreme CourtAppellate procedureCivil Practice and Remedies Code
References
28
Case No. 2016-02-0348
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2017

Hughes, Ralph v. Barnhart Crane and Rigging Co.

The employee, a crane operator, sustained an injury to his right hand and wrist during the course and scope of his employment. After receiving the employer’s discovery responses, the employee filed a motion for an extension of time to respond and to strike the employer’s responses, which the trial court denied. The employee appealed this decision. The Appeals Board affirmed the trial court’s decision and remanded the case, citing the employee's failure to provide a substantive argument on appeal and waiver of the issue.

Workers' CompensationRight Hand InjuryWrist InjuryDiscovery DisputeMotion to StrikeExtension of TimeAppellate ProcedureWaiver of ArgumentTrial Court AffirmationRemand
References
1
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
Case No. 2-04-065-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tarrant County Hospital District D/B/A John Peter Smith Hospital v. GE Automation Services, Inc., F/K/A GE Industrial Systems Solutions, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., F/K/A GE Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company

Appellant Tarrant County Hospital District appealed a summary judgment granted to Appellees GE Automation Services, Inc., Supply Operations, Inc., and General Electric Company. The suit stemmed from a 1996 transaction where Appellant alleged Appellees provided a defective bus duct system, leading to contract, warranty, products liability, and negligence claims. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the four-year statute of limitations under the Uniform Commercial Code (Texas Business & Commerce Code § 2.725) barred the contract and warranty claims, overriding governmental immunity. Furthermore, the court held that the economic loss rule precluded Appellant's tort claims, as the alleged damages constituted economic losses to the subject matter of the contract itself.

Summary JudgmentGovernmental ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEconomic Loss RuleBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyProducts LiabilityNegligenceUniform Commercial CodeTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code
References
34
Case No. 01-09-00813-CV; 01-11-00688-CV; & 01-11-00689-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano v. Kenneth Beverly

Appellants Essex Crane Rental Corp. and Vincent A. Morano appealed trial court judgments favoring appellees Eric G. Carter, David W. Farley, and Kenneth Beverly, alongside an order granting Beverly’s motion to quiet title. Essex alleged the appellees conspired to fraudulently transfer assets to evade its judgments against Coastal Terminal Operators, Inc. and James W. McPherson, Sr. The court found sufficient evidence to raise fact issues regarding the conspiracy claims against all three appellees, concluding that attorney immunity did not shield fraudulent acts. Additionally, the court ruled that Beverly's objections to summary judgment evidence were untimely and his motion to quiet title was erroneously granted. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Fraudulent TransferCivil ConspiracyAttorney ImmunitySummary JudgmentQuiet TitleJudgment LienCreditor's RightsAppellate ReviewReversal and RemandTexas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,990 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