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. W2004-00477-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

James Crain, et.al v. Baptist Memorial Hospital

James Crain, an apprentice electrician, sustained severe burns while working on an electrical project for TAM Electric Company, an independent contractor, at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Crain filed a lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital, alleging negligence under a theory of premises liability, claiming the hospital owed him a duty to warn of latent defects or dangerous conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Baptist, determining that the work was inherently dangerous and thus, the landowner (Baptist) did not owe a duty of care to the independent contractor's employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the exception to the general duty of a landowner applies when an independent contractor is hired to perform inherently dangerous work, and working with electricity falls into this category.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentInherently Dangerous WorkDuty of CareElectrical AccidentLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waite v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiff Basil Waite, a baggage handler for AMR Services Corporation (an independent contractor for American Airlines), suffered a personal injury to his arm on November 18, 1995, when it got caught in a conveyor belt at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He filed a personal injury action against American Airlines, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of duty to maintain a safe premises. American Airlines moved for summary judgment. The court considered theories of recovery including assumed specific duty, common law/statutory duty to maintain safe premises, common law/statutory duty to control work, and vicarious liability for inherently dangerous work. The court found that American Airlines did not breach any duties and the activity was not inherently dangerous. Therefore, American's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentIndependent Contractor LiabilityPremises LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityBaggage Handling AccidentFederal Civil ProcedureNew York Labor LawVicarious Liability
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Agricultural Warehouse, Inc. v. Uvalle

Ruben Uvalle, an employee of Delta Engcon, Inc., sued Agricultural Warehouse, Inc. (AWI), the premises owner, and J & 0 Concrete for negligence after falling at a construction site in 1981. Uvalle was injured when a steel column gave way due to misaligned anchor bolts and unsafe erection methods. The jury found AWI ninety percent negligent and J & 0 ten percent negligent, awarding damages to Uvalle and Texas Employers Insurance Association. AWI appealed, asserting errors in the trial court's jury instructions regarding duty of care and the definition of 'inherently dangerous work', as well as the exclusion of evidence concerning Delta's negligence. The appellate court found that the trial court misstated the law, improperly excluded evidence, and incorrectly defined 'inherently dangerous work'. Consequently, the court reversed the judgment and remanded the cause for a new trial.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorJury InstructionsDuty of CareExcluded EvidenceInherently Dangerous WorkWorkers' CompensationAppellate Procedure
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville & Davidson County

Barry Wesley Cooper, an employee of Queen's Tree Surgery, Inc., was electrocuted while working under a contract between Queen's and Nashville Electric Service (NES) to trim trees near high-voltage power lines. The appellant, administrator of Cooper's estate, sued NES alleging failure to select a competent contractor and ensure safe work practices and equipment. The Trial Court granted summary judgment for NES, dismissing the case. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that an employer contracting for inherently dangerous work does not extend liability to the contractor's employees, even if the work is intrinsically dangerous, especially since employees are covered by worker's compensation.

Independent Contractor LiabilityInherently Dangerous WorkEmployer Duty of CareEmployee ElectrocutionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorker's CompensationTree TrimmingHigh-Voltage Power LinesNegligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Texas Electric Service Company

Abe S. Allen was seriously injured while working for R. B. Stovall Construction Company, a contractor for Texas Electric Service Company, when he came into contact with an energized wire. Allen sued Texas Electric Service Company, alleging negligence, retained control, and nondelegable duty for inherently dangerous work. The jury found Texas Electric negligent in some aspects but also found Allen contributorily negligent. The trial court initially disregarded the contributory negligence finding but later disregarded the findings of negligence against Texas Electric and sustained Texas Electric's motion for judgment, resulting in a take-nothing judgment against Allen. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that Texas Electric did not fail in any duty owed to Allen, noting Allen's experience and knowledge of the dangers, and found no evidence of Texas Electric's right of control beyond ensuring work compliance.

Independent Contractor LiabilityOwner-Contractee DutyInherently Dangerous WorkContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityKnown DangersElectrical AccidentAppellate ReviewTexas LawPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. County of Erie

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking damages for injuries sustained after falling from a tree while trimming branches on property owned by defendant County of Erie. The County had hired defendant American Site Developers LLC (ASD) as a general contractor and defendant Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. (MP) to monitor cleanup work. Plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, asserted causes of action against the County, ASD, and MP for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint against all defendants. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order, concluding that the defendants did not have supervisory control over the plaintiff's work, which is a precondition for liability under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence. Additionally, the court rejected the plaintiff's contention that the County created the dangerous condition, noting that the dangers were inherent in the work itself.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionCommon-Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlSafe Place to WorkTree Trimming AccidentConstruction AccidentPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. v. Porter

This case concerns an appeal regarding a lawsuit filed by Jack Porter and his wife against Campbell Cleaning & Dye Works, Inc. The plaintiffs sought 630 hours of overtime pay for Mrs. Porter, who worked as a laundress, under Article 5169 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Statutes. The defendant contended that recovery was not possible as Mrs. Porter also worked in the dry cleaning department, not exclusively the laundry. The trial court found the departments intermingled, making differentiation impossible. The appellate court affirmed the finding that the work fell under the statute but reversed the award of attorney's fees, deeming them non-recoverable.

Overtime PayLaundry IndustryDry CleaningEmployment LawWage DisputeStatutory InterpretationAttorney's FeesTexas Civil ProcedureAppeal DecisionWorker Classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. Stanley Works, Inc.

Antonio Alonso sued his employer, The Stanley Works, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge after his employment was terminated while on medical leave for a work-related injury, claiming it was due to his workers' compensation claim. Stanley Works moved for summary judgment, asserting Alonso was terminated under a uniformly enforced six-month leave of absence policy. The trial court granted summary judgment, finding Alonso failed to provide evidence that his termination would not have occurred but for his workers' compensation claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the uniform enforcement of a reasonable absence-control policy does not constitute retaliatory discharge under the Texas Labor Code.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLeave of Absence PolicyUniform EnforcementTexas Labor CodeEmployment TerminationAbsence Control PolicyAppellate ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
4
Case No. No. 08-07-00346-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2010

W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo/Rosemary Smith v. Rosemary Smith/W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C. D/B/A Auto & Work Injury Clinic and Maria Del Carmen Gallardo

Rosemary Smith, an El Paso Police Officer, sued W.C. LaRock, D.C., P.C., d/b/a Auto & Work Injury Clinic, and its employee Maria Gallardo, alleging negligence after a physical therapy session aggravated a prior back injury. The City of El Paso, Smith's worker's compensation subrogee, joined as a plaintiff. The jury found Gallardo negligent, awarding Smith $488,000, which the trial court reduced to $339,983.58. Both parties appealed. The Court of Appeals found the expert testimony on causation insufficient to establish that Gallardo's therapy proximately caused Smith's reherniation, as the expert only stated it was "possible." The court reversed the trial court's judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceCausationExpert TestimonyPhysical TherapyHerniated DiscSpinal SurgeryProximate CauseLegal SufficiencyAppeal
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wyler Industrial Works, Inc. v. Garcia

Robert Garcia, a pipe-fitter's helper, filed a workers' compensation claim after a work-related injury. He was subsequently terminated by Wyler Industrial Works, Inc., who claimed it was due to a low budget and his unavailability for Saturday work. Garcia sued for wrongful termination, and a jury found Wyler discharged him for filing the claim, awarding $60,000 in damages. Wyler appealed, arguing insufficiency of evidence for both liability and damages, as well as errors in prejudgment interest and jury instructions. The appellate court affirmed the jury's findings, concluding there was sufficient evidence to support Garcia's termination due to his workers' compensation claim and the damage award, and finding no abuse of discretion in the trial court's rulings.

Wrongful TerminationWorkers' Compensation ClaimRetaliationSufficiency of EvidenceLegal InsufficiencyFactual InsufficiencyAbuse of DiscretionPrejudgment InterestJury InstructionsCollateral Source Rule
References
61
Showing 1-10 of 10,884 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