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

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

Gross v. Nashville Gas Co.

Plaintiffs John M. Gross and Wayne Adair, employees of South Central Bell Telephone Company, sustained severe burns when a fire erupted in a manhole they were working in. They alleged the fire was caused by leaking natural gas from lines maintained by the defendant, Nashville Gas Company, claiming negligence and strict liability. The trial in Davidson County, Tennessee, in January 1979, resulted in a jury finding both parties negligent and a verdict in favor of Nashville Gas Company, leading to the dismissal of the case. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding evidence admissibility, jury instructions on remote contributory negligence, strict liability, duty of care, gross negligence, punitive damages, and urging the judicial adoption of comparative negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no error in its rulings on evidence or jury instructions, and declined to judicially adopt comparative negligence, suggesting it is a legislative matter. The court found that the evidence did not support a finding of gross negligence or strict liability against the gas company.

Personal InjuryNegligenceContributory NegligenceComparative NegligenceGas LeakManhole FireWorkplace AccidentEvidence AdmissibilityJury InstructionsStrict Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R & R CONTRACTORS v. Torres

This case involves an appeal by R & R Contractors and R & R Oilfield Services, Inc. (appellant) against the judgment favoring the widow and children of Gregorio Torres, Jr. (appellees), a truck driver who died in a workplace accident. The jury had found R & R grossly negligent and awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. The appeal raised two issues: legal sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a "clear and convincing evidence" standard for gross negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court erred by applying the "preponderance of the evidence" standard instead of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard, which was legally required. Despite finding reversible error, the court also reviewed the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and concluded there was sufficient evidence to uphold the finding. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings under the correct standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesLegal SufficiencyStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceStatutory Construction
References
35
Case No. 13-00-342-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2002

R & R Contractors and R & R Field Services, Inc. v. Mary Torres

This case involves an appeal from the Thirteenth District of Texas, Corpus Christi, regarding a wrongful death action. Gregorio Torres, Jr., an employee of R&R Contractors and R&R Oilfield Services, Inc., died after a thousand-pound tank fell on him during unloading operations. His surviving spouse and children filed a gross negligence suit under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act, and a jury awarded $200,000 in punitive damages. On appeal, R&R raised two issues: the legal sufficiency of the evidence for gross negligence and the trial court's refusal to apply a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard for exemplary damages. The appellate court agreed that the trial court erred by using a 'preponderance of the evidence' standard, citing changes from the 1995 tort reform legislation. However, the court found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of gross negligence against both the employee-operator and the corporation, based on extreme risk and conscious indifference to safety. The judgment of the trial court was reversed and remanded for further proceedings due to the incorrect standard of proof.

Workers' CompensationWrongful DeathGross NegligenceExemplary DamagesPunitive DamagesStandard of ProofClear and Convincing EvidencePreponderance of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyCrane Operation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guerrero v. Standard Alloys Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff Francisco Guerrero, an employee supplied by a contract labor provider, sustained finger injuries while operating machinery at Standard Alloys Manufacturing Company. A negligence suit resulted in a jury finding defendant negligent and awarding $125,000 in damages. The trial court entered a take-nothing judgment, which the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court focused on the defendant's failure to plead or prove worker's compensation coverage, a crucial element for a borrowed servant defense, and found the trial court's judgment should be reversed. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the defendant's motion to reopen evidence or the amendment of the petition. Ultimately, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and judgment was rendered for the plaintiff to recover $125,000.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationBorrowed Servant DoctrinePersonal InjuryTexas Civil ProcedureAppellate ReviewTrial Court DiscretionJudgment ReversalDamages AwardContributory Negligence
References
20
Case No. 07-01-0111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2001

Shanna Perez, Individually and as Next Friend of Samantha Perez v. Williams & Peters Construction Company

Shanna Perez, individually and as next friend of Samantha Perez, appealed a take-nothing summary judgment in her gross negligence suit against Williams & Peters Construction Co., Inc. The suit stemmed from the death of Pedro Perez during his employment, who was asphyxiated by sand while cleaning a bin. Despite the employer being a worker's compensation subscriber, the appellant sought damages for gross negligence. The appellate court reviewed whether the appellant presented more than a scintilla of evidence for gross negligence, applying the standard of extreme risk and subjective awareness of the risk with conscious indifference. The court ultimately found no evidence that the employer or its employees subjectively knew of the particular risk to Pedro on the day of the incident, despite potential OSHA violations and inadequate procedures, and thus affirmed the trial court's summary judgment.

Gross NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealWorkplace FatalityConfined Space AccidentEmployer LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawTexas Court of AppealsAsphyxiation DeathOSHA ViolationsConscious Indifference
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Magnolia Petroleum Co. v. Booth

Ellis B. Jones, an employee of Magnolia Petroleum Company, died in an oil still fire on October 5, 1933. His wife, Mrs. Troge Booth, and minor son, Joe Edd Jones, sued the company for exemplary damages, alleging gross negligence in operating a twin still while another was being cleaned and the stillman's temporary absence. A jury initially awarded $5,000 to the appellees. On appeal, the court reversed this judgment, finding no evidence of gross negligence, which it defined as a 'conscious indifference to the right or welfare of the person.' The court noted that the stills were built and operated using standard, common industry methods for over eleven years without incident. The stillman's actions, if negligent, were deemed ordinary, not gross, and he was not considered a vice principal. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and rendered for Magnolia Petroleum Company.

Gross NegligenceExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathIndustrial AccidentOil RefineryStill CleaningConscious IndifferenceForeman's DutyVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 1994

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Ellender

This case involves Mobil Oil Corporation's appeal of a jury verdict exceeding four million dollars, which found Mobil negligent and grossly negligent in the death of Eli Arnold Ellender due to benzene exposure. Mobil challenged the application of new punitive damage standards (Moriel/Kraus factors), the factual sufficiency of evidence for gross negligence and malice, the disallowance of settlement credit, and the calculation of prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the findings of gross negligence and malice, upholding the jury's verdict in part. However, it reversed and remanded the case for recalculation of prejudgment interest, citing an error in how it was applied before the punitive damage cap. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to deny settlement credit to Mobil due to insufficient evidence of the settlement amount presented by Mobil.

Benzene exposureAcute Myelogenous Leukemia (AML)Gross negligencePunitive damagesSettlement creditPrejudgment interestIndustrial safetyOccupational hazardsCorporate liabilityToxic tort
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berkel & Co. v. Lee

Tyler Lee, a superintendent for Skanska USA Building, Inc., suffered a severe leg injury when a crane collapsed on a construction site. He sued subcontractor Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc., alleging negligence, gross negligence, and intentional injury. The appellate court, on rehearing, reversed the trial court's judgment against Berkel. It ruled that the Texas Workers' Compensation Act protected Berkel from negligence and gross negligence claims because Berkel was deemed Lee's statutory co-employee. The court also found insufficient evidence to support the intentional-injury exception, specifically that Berkel's vice principal, Chris Miller, knew with "substantial certainty" that Lee, or a specific small class of victims in a localized area, would be harmed. The case was remanded for new proceedings to allow Lee to present evidence under the clarified "substantial certainty" standard.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentCrane CollapseWorkers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyIntentional TortGross NegligenceSubstantial CertaintyVice PrincipalCorporate Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Galvan v. Public Utilities Board

The parents of Rey Vallejo Galvan sued the Public Utilities Board of Brownsville (PUB) and the City of Brownsville for negligence and gross negligence after Rey Vallejo's apparent drowning while employed by PUB. The PUB moved for summary judgment, asserting immunity under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act, as Rey Vallejo was a beneficiary of a worker's compensation policy. Appellants argued that parents should be included as beneficiaries entitled to exemplary damages for gross negligence under the Act. The court reviewed the summary judgment standards and overruled the appellants' points of error, including challenges to an affidavit's validity, employer identification, and the pleading of an intentional tort. The court also rejected the appellants' argument that 'parents' should be considered 'heirs of his or her body' under the Texas Worker’s Compensation Act and the Texas Constitution, referencing established legal precedent. Finally, due process and equal protection challenges to this interpretation were also rejected based on prior rulings that found the classification rationally related to a legitimate state purpose. The trial court's judgment was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceGross NegligenceSummary JudgmentEmployer ImmunityJudicial AdmissionsRes Ipsa LoquiturBeneficiariesHeirs of the BodyDue Process
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 6,423 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