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

Allen v. Connolly

This case concerns an appeal by Tracy Dawn Allen, an employee who was robbed and sexually assaulted at her workplace, Traci Connolly d/b/a Traci Connolly Insurance. Allen sued her employer for negligence, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace and adequate training on an alarm system. The trial court granted summary judgment for Connolly, finding no foreseeable risk of harm. The appellate court, presided over by Justice KEM THOMPSON FROST, affirmed this decision. The court applied the foreseeability analysis from Timberwalk Apartments, Partners, Inc. v. Cain to the employer-employee context, concluding that Connolly had no reason to foresee a violent criminal act on her premises, thus negating a duty of care. The court found Allen's evidence of prior criminal activity insufficient to establish foreseeability.

negligenceforeseeabilitypremises liabilityemployer liabilitysummary judgmentthird-party criminal actssafe workplacesexual assaultaggravated robberyTexas law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Pacific Railroad v. Williams

Seymour Williams, a former Union Pacific Railroad Company employee, filed a Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim for injuries sustained at a train derailment site. The trial court declined Union Pacific's proposed foreseeability instruction, leading to a jury verdict for Williams, which was affirmed by the court of appeals. The Supreme Court reversed this decision, holding that the trial court erred by not submitting a foreseeability instruction when evidence regarding the railroad's knowledge of dangerous conditions was disputed. The court clarified that foreseeability is an "essential ingredient" of the railroad's duty under FELA, and conflicting testimony necessitated jury deliberation on this element. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

FELARailroad NegligenceForeseeabilityJury InstructionsDuty of CareRemandAppellate ReviewTrial ProcedureWorkplace InjuryEmployer Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barton v. Whataburger, Inc.

This negligence case involves Rose Barton's appeal against Whataburger, Inc., following the aggravated robbery and murder of her son, Christopher Dean, a Whataburger employee. Barton alleged Whataburger was negligent in hiring manager Gregory Love, who conspired in the robbery, and in failing to provide a safe workplace or prevent the crime. The court affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Whataburger, concluding that the criminal acts leading to Dean's death were not foreseeable as a matter of law. The court examined Love's prior convictions (cocaine dealing, child support nonpayment) and past criminal incidents at the restaurant, deeming them insufficient to establish the foreseeability of such a violent crime. It also addressed the application of premises liability foreseeability standards to employer duties.

NegligenceWrongful DeathEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityForeseeabilityAggravated RobberyMurderSummary JudgmentTexas LawCriminal Acts
References
67
Case No. CV99-4341 (BMC) (RML)
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2007

Ramey v. District 141, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers

This case addresses several motions related to damages following a prior finding that defendant breached its duty by improperly stripping plaintiffs' seniority rights. The court examined the foreseeability of the September 11th attacks causing layoffs in the airline industry, concluding it was not foreseeable. However, the financial decline and subsequent bankruptcy of U.S. Airways were deemed potentially foreseeable causes of injury. The decision clarifies that the burden of proof for showing the September 11th attack as a superseding cause lies with the defendant. Additionally, claims for damages from voluntary furloughs or early retirement are to be analyzed under a mitigation of damages framework, with the defendant bearing the burden to prove plaintiffs acted unreasonably. Finally, the court ruled that the damages request is incidental to the primary request for injunctive relief, therefore, the remaining issues will be tried to the Court, not a jury.

ForeseeabilityProximate CauseSeptember 11th AttacksAirline IndustryLayoffsSeniority RightsBankruptcyDamages ClaimsMitigation of DamagesConstructive Discharge
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortega v. City of New York

This case addresses whether a plaintiff seeking summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim must establish foreseeability as part of their prima facie case. Plaintiff Cesar Ortega was injured during the Second Avenue Subway Tunnel Construction Project when a tremie rack, acting as an elevated work platform, tipped over. The Supreme Court denied Ortega's motion for partial summary judgment, citing issues of foreseeability and the lack of expert testimony. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, holding that foreseeability is generally not required for Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, except in cases involving the collapse of permanent structures. The court clarified that a plaintiff only needs to show injury during a covered activity due to inadequate safety devices, and found that the tremie rack's unsecured state constituted a failure to provide adequate protection against a gravity-related hazard.

Labor Law § 240 (1)ForeseeabilitySummary JudgmentScaffold LawElevation-related hazardConstruction accidentTremie rackAppellate DivisionNew York Labor LawPrima facie case
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton

Justice Cornyn's concurring opinion in 'Allbritton's Claim' highlights the historical development of causation in American and Texas jurisprudence, criticizing the Court's opinion for conflating foreseeability and cause-in-fact. He advocates for a bifurcated causal analysis, distinguishing between cause-in-fact (using 'but for' and 'substantial factor' tests as factual inquiries) and legal/proximate cause (incorporating foreseeability and policy-based limitations on liability). Applying this framework to Sue Allbritton's injury, Justice Cornyn argues that while the defective pump was a cause-in-fact, neither Union Pump's negligence nor the defective pump was a legal cause or producing cause of her injury. This is because her injury was not foreseeable and did not occur in a natural and continuous sequence from the defect, but rather resulted from a dangerous shortcut taken after the crisis had subsided, placing her outside the scope of products liability protection. Consequently, he concurs in the Court's judgment, which effectively denies Allbritton's claim, but for the distinct reasons outlined in his analysis.

CausationNegligenceProducts LiabilityForeseeabilityCause-in-FactProducing CauseSubstantial FactorTexas Supreme CourtLegal RealismTort Law
References
37
Case No. NO. 14-03-00622-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2005

Tracy Dawn Allen v. Traci Connolly D/ba/ Traci Connolly Insurance, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company

In this summary-judgment case, the court addresses whether there was a foreseeable risk of harm giving rise to an employer's duty to protect employees from the criminal acts of third parties. Appellant Tracy Dawn Allen challenges the trial court's summary judgment in favor of her former employer, appellee Traci Connolly d/b/a Traci Connolly Insurance. Allen, an employee, was robbed and sexually assaulted by an armed assailant at work. She alleged Connolly failed to provide a safe workplace and proper training for a security system. Connolly successfully argued in the trial court that no foreseeable risk of harm existed, and thus, no duty was owed under the Timberwalk standard. The appellate court, applying the Timberwalk analysis, found insufficient evidence of prior similar criminal activity to establish foreseeability of a violent act. Consequently, the court concluded that Allen's negligence claim against Connolly fails and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Summary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsForeseeability of HarmNegligenceSafe WorkplaceSexual AssaultAggravated RobberySecurity System
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 1991

Browne v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters Union 851

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed an order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court found that triable issues of fact existed regarding the defendants' alleged negligence in the control and operation of a truck in which the plaintiff was a passenger. Further issues of fact were identified concerning the reasonableness of precautionary steps taken by the defendants in the face of striking workers' picketing. Additionally, the court noted triable issues regarding the foreseeability of injury and whether an alleged intervening criminal act constituted foreseeable harm shaping the duty of care.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceTriable Issues of FactForeseeabilityIntervening ActTruck OperationPicket LineWorker StrikeCPLR 3212Appellate Affirmation
References
2
Case No. E2012-01204-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 29, 2013

Andrew Spencer v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Andrew Spencer (Plaintiff) sued Norfolk Southern Railway Company (Railroad) for negligence under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) after suffering an injury while working as a conductor. The Trial Court entered judgment on the jury’s verdict, finding the Railroad not at fault. Plaintiff appealed, raising an issue regarding jury instructions concerning foreseeability and notice. The Court of Appeals found that the jury instruction regarding foreseeability and notice was misleading, improperly limiting the time period for the Railroad's knowledge of unsafe conditions. Consequently, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Federal Employers’ Liability ActFELANegligenceJury InstructionsForeseeabilityNoticeVacatedRemandedRailroad IndustryWorkplace Injury
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haire v. Bonelli

Justice Peters writes a concurring opinion highlighting the alarming inadequacy of security measures at Hudson Valley Mall on the day of a shooting incident involving Robert Bonelli Jr. While acknowledging that Bonelli's specific criminal conduct might not have been foreseeable for legal liability, the justice argues that the Mall's security was severely lacking for foreseeable criminal activities. The Mall's own 2004 Security/Safety Audit revealed significant deficiencies, including the deployment of only one security guard for a vast facility and the unheeded recommendation for a closed-circuit television system. Additionally, requests for increased security personnel were repeatedly rejected, underscoring the

Security NegligenceMall SecurityForeseeability of CrimeInadequate SecurityShooting IncidentAppellate DecisionConcurring OpinionCriminal ConductLiabilitySecurity Audit
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 202 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