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

Dodd v. Texas Farm Products Co.

Bernard Dodd, an employee, sustained personal injuries on the premises of Texas Farm Products Company when a retaining wall collapsed after an abortive dynamite blast. The jury found Texas Farm negligent for failing to inspect the visibly damaged wall, awarding Dodd $86,000. However, the trial court granted Texas Farm's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, a decision affirmed by the court of civil appeals. The Texas Supreme Court reversed these judgments, concluding there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that Texas Farm's supervisory employee should have inspected the dangerous conditions. The Supreme Court consequently rendered judgment for Dodd on the jury verdict.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentNegligenceJudgment Notwithstanding VerdictJury VerdictAppellate ReviewDuty to InspectPremises LiabilityExplosivesSupervisor Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loyd v. Pierce

The case concerns the death of A. A. Pierce, an employee of J. Ernest Loyd, in a construction accident on April 10, 1933. His dependents, Ona Pierce, Alvin Archie Pierce, and Leroy Pierce, previously received workers' compensation but sought exemplary damages, alleging Loyd's gross negligence. They claimed the superintendent failed to warn Pierce of dynamite blasts and did not brace the excavation site, leading to a fatal cave-in. The trial court found for the plaintiffs, awarding $8,000. On appeal, the higher court examined whether the evidence met the standard for gross negligence, defined as 'conscious indifference.' The court found that the precautions taken were reasonable and there was no evidence of conscious indifference to danger. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a decision in favor of the appellant, J. Ernest Loyd.

Gross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWorkers' Compensation ActConstruction AccidentDynamite BlastingWorkplace SafetyConscious IndifferenceAppellate ReviewReversed JudgmentAssumption of Risk
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dodd v. Texas Farm Products

Appellant Dodd sued Texas Farm Products Co. for personal injuries sustained when a retaining wall and potash collapsed on him after he and a co-worker blasted to loosen material. A jury initially found appellee negligent for failing to inspect the wall after the blast, awarding $86,000 in damages, and did not find Dodd contributorily negligent. However, the trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding there was no evidence that Texas Farm Products Co. knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the retaining wall, which was apparently caused by the explosion set off by the appellant and his foreman.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoJury VerdictAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentEmployer's DutyHidden DangerAssumption of Risk
References
9
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 33173(11)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2008

Belding v. Verizon New York, Inc.

An installer, identified as the plaintiff, sustained injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while reinstalling bomb blast film in a building owned by Verizon New York, Inc. The plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted, while the defendants' cross-motion for dismissal was denied. The central legal dispute revolved around whether the reinstallation of bomb blast film constituted 'altering' a structure under the statute. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the work was part of a significant capital improvement and thus a protected activity. The dissent argued the work was merely cosmetic and did not meet the 'altering' criteria.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Ladder FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityAltering a BuildingCapital ImprovementBomb Blast FilmSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. M2006-02660-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2008

David Goff, et ux v. Elmo Greer & Sons Construction Co., Inc.

The Goffs, homeowners in Sparta, Tennessee, sued Elmo Greer & Sons Construction Company for various claims including breach of contract, property damage from blasting, and creating a nuisance by burying waste on their land during a highway widening project. While the jury awarded compensatory damages for contract breach, blasting, and nuisance, it declined to find the company liable for an environmental tort, yet still imposed punitive damages. The trial court remitted the punitive damages. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee reversed and remanded the punitive damages award, instructing the lower court to reconsider it based solely on the nuisance claim, as the environmental tort claim was rejected by the jury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding jury instructions and the denial of a mistrial motion.

Punitive DamagesNuisance ClaimBreach of ContractProperty DamageBlasting DamageWaste DisposalEnvironmental TortJury InstructionRemittiturAppellate Review
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gonzales v. Alman Construction Co.

Plaintiff James Franklin Gonzales was severely injured while working for Alman Construction Company due to an undetonated blasting cap. He and his wife filed a common law action against Alman, alleging willful and intentional misconduct, including numerous TOSHA violations related to blasting safety and the use of untrained personnel. Alman moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The trial court denied Alman's motion. On appeal, the court determined that Tennessee law requires actual intent to injure to bypass the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Act, a standard not met by allegations of gross negligence or safety violations. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the plaintiffs' common law action, affirming workers' compensation as the sole recourse.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyIntentional TortEmployer LiabilityGross NegligenceBlasting AccidentConstruction SafetyOccupational SafetySummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
15
Case No. ADJ8939849
Regular
Jan 04, 2016

GEORGE KIMMEL vs. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a workers' compensation claim for hearing loss. The applicant, a former correctional officer, alleged injury from a 1978 bomb blast and cumulative trauma from noise exposure throughout his career. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the initial award finding a cumulative trauma injury with a 2014 date of injury. The WCAB determined the case involves potential specific and cumulative injuries, requiring further development of the record regarding the date of injury, last injurious exposure, and the exact nature of the injuries. The matter was returned to the trial level for these further proceedings.

Cumulative traumaStatute of limitationsLachesDate of injurySpecific injuryTinnitusHearing lossQualified Medical ExaminerImprovised explosive deviceMatch bomb
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drexel v. New York State Thruway Authority

Claimants, including Wayne Drexel, sued the State of New York for personal injuries sustained when Drexel fell 70 feet from scaffolding during bridge blasting and repainting work. The Court of Claims granted claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the State's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss that claim. The court found a causal connection between the statutory violation and Drexel's injuries, and the defendant failed to prove Drexel's conduct was the sole proximate cause or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffolding FallSummary JudgmentAppellate AffirmationStatutory ViolationProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerConstruction SafetyCourt of Claims
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Employers' Insurance Ass'n v. Thompson

Thomas David Thompson, a painter-sandblaster for Courtney & Company, sustained an injury when his sandblasting machine accidentally activated, blasting his face and chest. A jury found the injury was the producing cause of total and permanent incapacity, a finding which this court affirmed. The appellant argued there was no evidence to show the injury caused the incapacity, citing medical testimony that Thompson suffered from silicosis, which the injury likely did not cause or aggravate. However, the court upheld the general Texas rule that lay witness testimony can establish injury and disability, even if contradicted by medical experts, especially when the claimant alleges direct injury rather than aggravation of a pre-existing disease.

Worker's CompensationSandblasting InjurySilicosisMedical TestimonyLay Witness TestimonyCausationTotal Permanent IncapacityAppealTexas LawAffirmed Judgment
References
16
Case No. M1998-00954-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Steven Bohanon v. Jones Bros., Inc.

This appeal concerns a property damage claim initiated by Steven Teddy Bohanon and Kathy Bohanon against Jones Bros., Inc., a contractor, following blasting operations for highway construction in Macon County. The Bohanons sued for actual and punitive damages, alleging negligence and property damage to their home. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Jones Bros., which the trial court upheld. On appeal, the property owners challenged the admissibility of evidence and the trial court's failure to provide a curative instruction. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment, concluding that there was no reversible error and that the jury's verdict was supported by material evidence, suggesting the jury may have disbelieved the extent of the claimed damages.

Blasting AccidentsProperty Damage ClaimsNegligence ClaimsUltra-hazardous ActivitiesJury Verdict ReviewAppellate Court DecisionEvidentiary AdmissibilityCausation in TortsDamages AssessmentCurative Instruction
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 15 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