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

Murray v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Jerry Wayne Murray, an employee of subcontractor Billy Joe McCord, was severely injured while painting overhead air ducts in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's plant. Murray filed a workers' compensation claim against McCord and Goodyear, alleging Goodyear was a statutory employer. The trial court initially found Goodyear liable due to its degree of control over the work. However, the case was appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the trial court's judgment. The Supreme Court concluded that Goodyear was not a statutory employer under Tennessee Code Annotated section 50-6-113 because the painting project was not part of Goodyear's regular business, nor did Goodyear exercise sufficient control over McCord's employees or the methods of work. Consequently, Goodyear was not held liable for workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationStatutory EmployerPrincipal ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityEmployer Control TestTennessee Workers' Compensation ActAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalIndustrial AccidentPainting Contract
References
14
Case No. 14-12-01048-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2013

Raymond L. Brooks v. the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Raymond L. Brooks appealed a trial court's summary judgment in favor of The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (Goodyear), which was based on Goodyear's exclusive-remedy affirmative defense under the Texas Labor Code. Brooks, an employee of Qualitech Maintenance, Inc. working at a Goodyear facility, sustained work-related injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from Qualitech's policy. He subsequently sued Goodyear for negligence, prompting Goodyear to argue it was his "statutory employer." Goodyear provided evidence that it had a written agreement to reimburse Qualitech for workers' compensation insurance premiums for Qualitech employees at Goodyear facilities, and it fulfilled this obligation. Citing HCBeck, Ltd., v. Rice, the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Goodyear conclusively established its "statutory employer" status and entitlement to the exclusive-remedy defense.

Workers' CompensationExclusive Remedy DefenseStatutory EmployerSummary JudgmentTexas Labor CodeContractual ReimbursementNegligence ClaimAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityQualitech Maintenance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Patrick Mayes sued Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company for negligence under theories of respondeat superior and negligent entrustment after a Goodyear employee, Corte Adams, fell asleep while driving a company truck on a personal errand and collided with Mayes's car. The trial court granted Goodyear's motion for summary judgment. Justice Jennings, in a dissenting opinion, argues that as a matter of law, Adams's actions were outside the course and scope of his employment, and there was no evidence Goodyear knew or should have known Adams was an incompetent or reckless driver. Therefore, Justice Jennings believes Mayes's claims under both theories should be overruled and the trial court's judgment affirmed.

NegligenceRespondeat SuperiorNegligent EntrustmentSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityEmployee MisconductPersonal ErrandCourse and Scope of EmploymentDissenting OpinionTexas Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 29, 2000

Briggs v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs James Briggs and Harry Gibbs, representing a proposed class, sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, alleging unjust enrichment due to Goodyear's refusal to comply with a prior Release and Settlement Agreement. This agreement, approved by the court in 1998, mandated Goodyear provide a bladder cancer surveillance program for former employees in exchange for plaintiffs dropping claims. Plaintiffs sought a constructive trust on Goodyear's assets, arguing legal remedies were inadequate for the program's unpredictable, long-term costs. The court granted Goodyear's motion to dismiss, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it did not retain jurisdiction over the previous agreement, and plaintiffs failed to establish diversity jurisdiction regarding the amount in controversy. Furthermore, the court found plaintiffs failed to state a claim for a constructive trust because a valid contract existed, precluding such equitable claims, and they did not adequately allege a confidential relationship or a proper transfer of an identifiable res.

Unjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyClass Action SettlementSettlement Agreement EnforcementAncillary JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1) DismissalRule 12(b)(6) Dismissal
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1994

Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs Dorothy J. and Louis Kowalski, Jr. sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for negligence and strict liability, alleging Mrs. Kowalski contracted bladder cancer from ortho-toluidine exposure via her husband's work clothes from Goodyear's Niagara Falls plant. Goodyear sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred, the strict liability claim was undefined, and no duty was owed to Mrs. Kowalski. The court denied Goodyear's motions, ruling that the federally required commencement date under CERCLA preempted the state statute of limitations. The court also found that plaintiffs adequately alleged Goodyear owed a duty of care due to the foreseeable harm from secondary exposure to a known dangerous substance, and that the strict liability claim required further evidence.

negligencestrict liabilitystatute of limitationsCERCLASARAhazardous substancestoxic exposurebladder canceroccupational diseasesecondary exposure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hesseltine v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

The case involves three plaintiffs, Donald Hesseltine, Charles Dwayne Parrish, and David Day, who sued their employer, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The plaintiffs alleged that Goodyear's mandatory person-to-person shift relief policy and other instances of working beyond scheduled hours without pay constituted uncompensated overtime. The District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Goodyear's motion for summary judgment. The court ruled that the claimed ten to fifteen minutes of uncompensated shift relief time was de minimis as a matter of law and thus not compensable. Furthermore, any claims for early or late relief were dismissed due to lack of definite evidence and because such arrangements were for employee benefit rather than employer requirement. The court also noted that Goodyear's existing premium payments would offset any potential overtime liability.

FLSAOvertime CompensationSummary JudgmentDe Minimis DoctrinePortal-to-Portal ActShift ReliefEmployment LawWage and HourPremium PayWaiver
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2008

Stalker v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

George R. Stalker died from a truck tire 'zipper rupture' while inflating it. His widow, the plaintiff, filed a products liability lawsuit against the tire manufacturer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, and the retreader, Rua & Sons, Inc., alleging design defect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a design defect and that the decedent, with over 20 years of experience, was already aware of the specific dangers and proper safety precautions related to tire inflation, thus negating the failure to warn claim.

Products LiabilityTire ExplosionZipper RuptureDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExperienced WorkerSafety PrecautionsExpert Witness Testimony
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Rogers

Carl Rogers died from mesothelioma after working for The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company. His family sued Goodyear for gross negligence, alleging asbestos exposure at work caused his illness. The jury found Goodyear grossly negligent and awarded exemplary damages. Goodyear appealed, challenging the sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and causation, and arguing for a reduction in exemplary damages due to the application of a statutory cap. The appellate court affirmed the findings of gross negligence and causation, but sustained Goodyear's third issue, suggesting a remittitur of exemplary damages. The court found insufficient evidence for the full amount of pecuniary losses for the daughters and largely for the wife, leading to a reduction in the maximum exemplary damages.

Asbestos ExposureMesotheliomaGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesStatutory CapPecuniary LossCausationWorkers' CompensationOccupational DiseaseEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. M2014-00475-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2015

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company v. Karla Davis

An employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., Susan Settle, suffered work-related injuries and began receiving workers' compensation medical treatment. After relocating to Minnesota, Settle requested a second panel of physicians, which Goodyear denied. A workers' compensation specialist ordered Goodyear to provide the panel, an order affirmed by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development after administrative review. Goodyear then filed a petition for writ of certiorari, arguing the Department exceeded its authority. The Chancery Court denied the Department's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and upheld the Department's order. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Goodyear failed to exhaust its administrative remedies, specifically the Benefit Review Conference process, prior to seeking judicial review.

Workers' Compensation LawSubject Matter JurisdictionExhaustion of Administrative RemediesPanel of PhysiciansMedical BenefitsTennessee Department of Labor and Workforce DevelopmentWrit of CertiorariAppellate ReviewProcedural LawAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. W2013-01597-SC-WCO-WC
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2015

Orville Lambdin v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company

Orville Lambdin, an employee of Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for 37 years, suffered a gradual, high-frequency hearing loss due to workplace noise. After retirement, he filed a workers' compensation claim. The trial court initially awarded 10% vocational disability, but later, after a motion to alter or amend and considering expert medical testimony by Dr. Karl Studtmann, increased the award to 30%. This increase was based on Studtmann's alternative methodology for assessing high-frequency hearing loss, as the AMA Guides were deemed not to "cover" losses above 3000 hertz. Goodyear appealed, arguing against the alternative method. The Supreme Court of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidentiary support for Dr. Studtmann's method and the increased vocational disability award.

High-frequency hearing lossVocational disabilityAMA GuidesWorkers' compensationNoise-induced hearing lossMedical impairment ratingExpert medical testimonyOtolaryngologyAudiogramBinaural hearing impairment
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 188 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