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

La Villa Independent School District v. Gomez Garza Design, Inc.

La Villa Independent School District appealed a judgment in favor of Gomez Garza Design, Inc. for breach of contract. The case stemmed from a 1995 agreement for architectural services, where a dispute arose when La Villa hired another firm for a new elementary school project after Garza Design had commenced preliminary work under the existing contract. The trial court's judgment, based on a jury finding, awarded Garza Design $52,850.00. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that sufficient evidence supported the jury's conclusions regarding the existence of a valid contract, the superintendent's authority to bind the school district, and the calculation of damages. The court also determined that the contract did not violate the Professional Services Procurement Act.

Breach of contractArchitectural servicesSchool districtSuperintendent authorityContract validityProfessional Services Procurement ActDamagesJury findingsJudgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV)Estoppel
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Caterpillar Tractor Company

Santiago Gonzales, who sustained back injuries after falling from a step on a Caterpillar Traxcavator, sued Caterpillar alleging design defect and negligent design. A jury initially found in favor of Gonzales, awarding $252,991.05. The Court of Civil Appeals subsequently reversed this decision, ruling that there was no evidence to support claims of design defect or negligent design. However, the Supreme Court of Texas reversed the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, determining that there was evidentiary support for both the design defect and negligent design findings made by the jury. The case was remanded to the Court of Civil Appeals for further consideration of factual insufficiency points.

Design DefectNegligent DesignProduct LiabilityStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryIndustrial EquipmentHeavy MachineryWorker SafetySlip and FallEvidentiary Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 02-08-00210-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Lourdes Maria Vargas De Damian, Individually, as Next Friend to Nicole Denisse Damian Vargas, and as Representative of the Estate of Demetrio Damian Chen v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Appellants, including family members of deceased pilots and passengers, filed a lawsuit against Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. following a Bell 407 helicopter crash on January 27, 2000, in Panama. The lawsuit alleged strict products liability and negligence, specifically citing design defects in the helicopter's windshield and restraint system. The crash was caused by a black vulture penetrating the windshield, which incapacitated Captain Damian and resulted in fatalities. A jury found a design defect, negligence by both Bell and Captain Damian (50% responsibility each), and awarded damages. The trial court's final judgment was issued on February 28, 2008. On appeal, the court affirmed the portion of the trial court's judgment related to the claims on behalf of Gloria Gasperi's estate. However, it reversed and rendered judgment that other appellants take nothing. The appellate court found no federal preemption, ruled that the Panamanian statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and upheld the sufficiency of evidence for the seatbelt design defect and Captain Damian's comparative negligence. Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence for design defects related to the windshield and door mounts. Claims of juror misconduct were rejected due to legal prohibitions on juror testimony.

Helicopter crashProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligenceFederal preemptionComparative negligenceWrongful death claimsSurvival claimsStatute of limitationsJury misconduct
References
103
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Damian v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a helicopter crash on January 27, 2000, where Appellants sued Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. for strict products liability and negligence due to design defects in the Bell 407 helicopter. The jury found a design defect, negligence by Bell and Captain Damian, and awarded damages. Key issues on appeal included federal preemption of design defect claims, the Panamanian statute of limitations, standing for equitably-adopted children, and the capacity for survival claims. The court affirmed the judgment regarding Gloria Gasperi's estate claims but reversed and rendered a take-nothing judgment for other appellants due to insufficient evidence of safer alternative designs for the helicopter's windshield and door mounts. The court also upheld the jury's finding of comparative negligence against Captain Damian.

Products LiabilityNegligenceHelicopter CrashBird StrikeDesign DefectFederal PreemptionStatute of LimitationsWrongful DeathSurvival ClaimExpert Testimony
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.B. Custom Design & Building v. Clawson

The appeal stems from a Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) lawsuit filed by L.W. Clawson and Linda Clawson against J.B. Custom Design and Building for damages related to faulty foundation repair services. The jury found that J.B. Custom Design engaged in unworkmanlike conduct, misrepresentations, and knowingly committed DTPA violations, awarding actual and mental anguish damages. The trial court initially awarded discretionary treble damages and set aside the mental anguish award. On appeal, the court ruled that the trial court erred in determining discretionary damages without a jury issue and in setting aside the jury's findings on mental anguish. The judgment was reformed, reducing discretionary damages by $14,000 and reinstating $8,000 for mental anguish, resulting in a total judgment of $18,000 in damages plus $9,000 in attorneys’ fees.

Deceptive Trade Practices ActDTPAfoundation repairunworkmanlike mannermisrepresentationknowing conductmental anguish damagestreble damagesjury findingsjudgment notwithstanding verdict
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1992

Medical Designs, Inc. v. Medical Technology, Inc.

This case involves a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Medical Designs, Inc. (MDI) against Medical Technology, Inc. (MTI) and Gary Bledsoe, asserting infringement of two patents: U.S. Patent No. 4,407,276 and U.S. Patent Des. 269,379. The defendants counterclaimed, arguing patent invalidity and unenforceability. The court found that claims 1-7 of the ’276 patent were anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102 by prior art, and claims 1-8 were obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Furthermore, the entire ’276 patent was deemed unenforceable due to inequitable conduct by MDI's patent attorney for intentionally omitting material prior art from the Patent and Trademark Office. While the ’379 design patent was found valid and enforceable, MDI failed to prove infringement. Consequently, the court awarded attorneys' fees and damages to MTI and Bledsoe against MDI and Floyd Hutson.

Patent infringementUtility patentDesign patentPatent invalidityPatent unenforceabilityPrior artObviousnessAnticipationInequitable conductAttorney's fees
References
20
Case No. 03-97-00434-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1998

Nicholas Van Bavel v. Oasis Design, Inc. David Knapp Constantine Ciocan And C & C Electronics, Ltd.

Nicholas van Bavel sued Oasis Design, Inc., David Knapp, Constantine Ciocan, and C&C Electronics, Ltd. for fraud, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. The jury found in van Bavel's favor, but the trial court granted a judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's take-nothing judgment on van Bavel's individual claims of breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and breach of contract, finding legally insufficient evidence for a fiduciary relationship, detrimental reliance for fraud, and no breach of contract based on a "business sense" clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the derivative action, finding legally sufficient evidence that Knapp and Ciocan breached their fiduciary duty to Oasis Design but factually insufficient evidence to support the jury's damage award, requiring a new trial on that specific claim.

Corporate LawShareholder DisputeFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractFraudJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictAppellate ReviewDerivative ActionDamagesFactually Insufficient Evidence
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Insurance v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co.

A fire occurred on January 1, 2010, at a garage owned by the Town of Dannemora Highway Department, involving a Samsung Loader. Unnamed insurance companies, subrogated to the Town, sued Volvo Construction Equipment (manufacturer of the Samsung Loader) for negligent design, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Both parties moved to exclude expert testimonies, which the court largely denied, stating issues raised pertain to weight, not admissibility. Defendants also sought summary judgment, which was granted for failure to warn and manufacturing defect claims (as plaintiffs withdrew them), but denied for design defect and negligence claims, allowing plaintiffs' expert to testify on alternative designs. The court emphasized the liberal standard for expert qualification and that disputes about credentials go to weight, not admissibility.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardProduct LiabilityDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationNFPA 921SubrogationVolvo Construction Equipment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2005

Whitmire v. Terex Telelect, Inc.

Raymond W. Whitmire, Sr. sued Terex Teleleet, Inc. after suffering severe injuries from falling twelve feet from a digger derrick's operator chair. Whitmire alleged strict products liability due to design, manufacturing, and marketing defects, as well as negligence, citing insufficient safety features like handholds and an intermediate step. Terex sought summary judgment, arguing Whitmire failed to prove causation and abandoned some claims. The court granted partial summary judgment, dismissing Whitmire's manufacturing, marketing defect, and warranty claims due to abandonment. However, the court denied summary judgment for the strict products liability (design defect) and negligence claims, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the product's design, its unreasonably dangerous nature, the availability of a safer alternative, and causation.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectSummary JudgmentCausationForeseeabilityDigger DerrickIndustrial AccidentPersonal Injury
References
95
Showing 1-10 of 2,015 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