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. 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

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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarver v. County of Erie

Huey Scarver, an electrician employed by CIR Electrical Construction Corporation, sustained injuries while working on a sewage pumping station project owned by the County of Erie. Scarver jumped from a ladder after another worker warned him of a falling iron pipe incident in the sub-basement, resulting in a fractured left foot and ankle. Scarver and other plaintiffs filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against the County of Erie, Granville Constructors, Inc. (general contractor), and Quackenbush Co., Inc. (mechanical subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, concluding that Scarver's injury was not a foreseeable consequence of the alleged negligence or Labor Law violations. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that the combined actions of the warning worker and Scarver constituted an intervening and superseding cause of his injuries, and the harm was not within the class of reasonably foreseeable hazards.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryNegligenceLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Summary JudgmentForeseeability of HarmIntervening CauseSuperseding CauseAppellate Decision
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schittino v. State

Claimant, an inmate at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, appealed a Court of Claims judgment in favor of the State, alleging negligence after being injured by another inmate who threw hot coffee at him. The claimant asserted the State failed to protect him from foreseeable harm and intervene during the altercation. The Court of Claims found the State was not negligent, accepting a correction officer's testimony that the incident was nearly instantaneous, contradicting the claimant's account of a prolonged interval. The appellate court affirmed the decision, deferring to the trial court's credibility assessments and upholding its discretion regarding discovery compliance and the refusal to draw a missing witness inference.

Inmate assaultPrison negligenceForeseeable harmCredibility assessmentDiscovery complianceWitness testimonyAppellate reviewState liabilityCorrectional officer dutyInstitutional liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1996

Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Eric A. Johnson filed a wrongful death action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) following the murder and sexual assault of his wife, Dr. Kathryn Hinnant, at Bellevue Hospital in 1989 by a former patient. Johnson alleged negligence due to HHC's failure to provide adequate security. A jury found HHC's security measures reasonable, and the trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict. This appeal sought to overturn that judgment. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that HHC had reasonably met its security obligations given the foreseeable harm, and the jury's verdict was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceHospital SecurityJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceForeseeable HarmPsychiatric PatientHomelessnessSecurity MeasuresAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brandt v. Surber

This is an appeal from a trial court's judgment in a medical malpractice case, arising from the death of William Tate Surber. Appellees, his family, sued the appellant doctors, alleging that their failure to order an angiogram following two severe bleeding episodes post-sinus surgery constituted medical malpractice and caused Surber's death. A jury found in favor of the appellees, and the trial court rendered judgment accordingly. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on proximate cause, foreseeability of harm, and the doctors' breach of the standard of care. The court also upheld the admission of expert testimony and the denial of a motion for new trial, which alleged juror misconduct.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathNeurosurgeryOtolaryngologySinus SurgeryHemorrhageInternal Carotid ArteryAngiogramProximate CauseForeseeability
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acquisto v. Manitowoc Co.

The plaintiff brought claims for negligent product design and strict products liability after suffering injuries from a slip and fall allegedly caused by a defectively designed ice dispenser. The defendant, the manufacturer of the ice dispenser, moved for summary judgment. United States District Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo, adopting the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy, granted summary judgment to the defendant. The court determined that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a substantial likelihood of harm from the product's design, even considering foreseeable misuse. The expert testimony also lacked foundational facts and industry standards to prove an unreasonably unsafe design under New York law.

Product LiabilityDesign DefectSummary JudgmentForeseeable MisuseRisk-Utility AnalysisExpert Witness TestimonyFederal Civil ProcedureIce DispenserSlip and FallNegligent Design
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rice v. Sabir

This case concerns a premises liability claim brought by John L. Rice, a contractor, against Veronica J. Sabir, the homeowner, after he fell from her roof due to mildew. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for Sabir, concluding no duty of care was owed. The Court of Appeals reversed, citing a factual dispute over whether Sabir authorized Rice's hiring. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Sabir. The court held that Sabir owed no duty to warn the contractor as the risk of harm from the roof's condition was not reasonably foreseeable and did not outweigh the burden of preventing it, particularly since Sabir lacked knowledge of the roof's specific dangerous condition.

Premises liabilityContractor injuryRoof fallMildew hazardDuty of careForeseeability of harmSummary judgmentNegligenceIndependent contractorHomeowner liability
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,294 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