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

Valencia v. Freeland & Lemm Construction Co.

This case addresses the interpretation of the "actual intent" exception to the exclusive remedy provision of Tennessee's Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiff, as next friend of Francisco Valencia, appealed the dismissal of tort claims against Freeland and Lemm Construction Company, whose alleged safety violations led to Valencia's death in a trench collapse. The plaintiff argued that an employer's conduct "substantially certain" to cause injury or death should fall under the intentional tort exception. However, the Tennessee Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the exception strictly requires proof of "actual intent" to injure the employee, distinguishing it from conduct that is merely grossly or criminally negligent or "substantially certain" to cause harm. Consequently, workers' compensation remains the exclusive remedy in the absence of such actual intent.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusive Remedy ProvisionIntentional Tort ExceptionActual IntentSubstantially Certain ConductEmployer LiabilityWorkplace FatalityTrench CollapseSafety ViolationsStatutory Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1995

Vasarhelyi v. New School for Social Research

Plaintiff Marina Vasarhelyi, former Controller and Treasurer of The New School for Social Research, questioned President Jonathan Fanton's financial practices and hiring decisions. In response, Fanton initiated an investigation into a leaked confidential memorandum, singling out Vasarhelyi for hostile interrogation by criminal attorneys. When she requested a witness for further questioning, Fanton suspended and subsequently terminated her employment. Vasarhelyi sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and prima facie tort. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court modified the judgment, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while affirming the dismissal of the defamation and prima facie tort claims.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressDefamationPrima Facie TortEmployer RetaliationWrongful TerminationAbuse of PowerHostile Work EnvironmentEmployee InterrogationAppellate ReviewJudgment Modification
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2007

Botway v. National Response Corp.

The defendant, Deborah L. Wick, appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged Wick, her supervisor at National Response Corporation (NRC), caused injuries through an intentional tort, despite receiving worker's compensation benefits. Wick argued the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, and the intentional tort exception did not apply as she lacked intent to injure. The Supreme Court denied Wick's motion, finding a factual dispute regarding the intentional tort. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that Wick failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by not eliminating the existence of a factual issue concerning whether an intentional tort was committed.

Personal InjuryIntentional TortSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySupervisor LiabilityAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactPrima Facie EntitlementEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. 06-03-00046-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2004

David Durbin, Brenda Davis, Individually, and Brenda Davis, as Next Friend of Brenda Durbin v. City of Winnsboro

The Durbins sued the City of Winnsboro after Jimmy Durbin died in a motorcycle accident during a police pursuit by Officer Tony Browning. The Durbins alleged wrongful death, respondeat superior, and negligent entrustment, claiming Browning purposefully 'bumped' Jimmy's motorcycle. Winnsboro filed a plea to the jurisdiction and a motion for summary judgment, asserting the claims were barred by the intentional tort exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act. The appellate court clarified that an intentional tort under the Act requires intent to cause injury, not just intent to act. It held that the Durbins' negligence claims for Browning's actions were not barred. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims for negligent entrustment and exemplary damages, which are barred by the Texas Tort Claims Act. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityIntentional Tort ExceptionRespondeat SuperiorNegligent EntrustmentExemplary DamagesPolice PursuitMotor Vehicle AccidentWrongful Death
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durbin v. City of Winnsboro

Jimmy Durbin died in a motorcycle accident while being pursued by a Winnsboro police officer, Tony Browning. His parents, David Durbin and Brenda Davis, and minor daughter, Brenda Durbin (collectively, the Durbins), sued Browning and the City of Winnsboro for wrongful death, respondeat superior, negligent entrustment, and exemplary damages. The trial court dismissed the claims against Winnsboro, citing the intentional tort exception of the Texas Tort Claims Act. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of claims for negligent entrustment and exemplary damages. However, it reversed the dismissal of the respondeat superior claims, holding that the intentional tort exception applies only when the actor intended to cause injury, not merely intended the act itself. The case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Texas Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIntentional Tort ExceptionNegligenceRespondeat SuperiorNegligent EntrustmentExemplary DamagesWrongful DeathPolice PursuitMotorcycle Accident
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ralph v. Oliver

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Oneida County. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, affirming in part and reinstating a cause of action. It was deemed proper to defer the plaintiff’s negligence claim against a coemployee defendant, pending a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the course of employment. However, the court ruled that the plaintiff could pursue an intentional tort of assault claim independently, as it falls outside the Workers’ Compensation Law if the assault was committed with deliberate intent and outside the scope of employment. Consequently, the plaintiff's assault cause of action was reinstated.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceIntentional TortAssaultCoemployee LiabilityScope of EmploymentJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Board Deferral
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Briggs v. Pymm Thermometer Corp.

The plaintiffs, former employees of Pymm Thermometer Corporation, initiated an action to recover damages for personal injuries stemming from mercury and solvent exposure. They appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which dismissed their complaint against Pymm. The plaintiffs argued that Pymm's actions constituted an intentional tort and fraudulent concealment, thus bypassing the exclusivity of the Workers' Compensation Law. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law generally bars common-law tort actions against employers for work-related injuries, with an exception only for intentional torts directed at specific employees, which was not adequately pleaded. Furthermore, the court clarified that Labor Law violations do not override Workers' Compensation exclusivity and that acceptance of workers' compensation benefits precludes intentional tort claims.

Personal Injury DamagesEmployer NegligenceIntentional MisrepresentationFraudulent InducementExclusive Remedy DoctrineStatutory ViolationsToxic Substance ExposureAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissAffirmation of Order
References
6
Case No. W2012-01173-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2013

Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, Sole Survivors of Joan Lois Moody v. GCA Services Group, Inc., and Weakley County Tennessee

The case involves an appeal concerning injuries sustained by a deceased employee due to mold exposure during her employment. Her heirs, Celia Moody Rodgers and Sherry Moody Gonzalez, filed common law tort claims against the employers, GCA Services Group, Inc. and Weakley County Tennessee, alleging intentional injury. The employers sought dismissal, asserting that the Tennessee Workers' Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy. The trial court granted the dismissal, finding the tort claims barred. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee affirmed the trial court's decision, reiterating that the intentional tort exception to the exclusive remedy provision requires 'actual intent' to injure, and mere gross negligence or knowing dangerous conditions are insufficient to overcome the workers' compensation exclusivity.

Workers' CompensationIntentional TortExclusive RemedyMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewActual IntentGross NegligenceEmployer LiabilityPremises LiabilityMold Exposure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2006

City of Waco v. Williams

This case concerns an interlocutory appeal regarding the City of Waco's plea to the jurisdiction in a wrongful death lawsuit. The plaintiffs, children of Robert Earl Williams, Sr., sued the city under the Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA), alleging negligence after police officers repeatedly used Tasers on their father, resulting in his death. The central issue was whether the TTCA's intentional-tort exception to sovereign immunity applied. The court determined that the plaintiffs' claims, despite being framed as negligence, inherently alleged an intentional tort (assault) due to the officers' intentional use of Tasers to cause injury. Consequently, sovereign immunity was not waived, and the trial court's denial of the plea was reversed, leading to the dismissal of the case against the City of Waco, with claims for negligent policy implementation and training also failing.

Sovereign ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActIntentional Tort ExceptionPolice MisconductExcessive ForceTaser UseWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewPlea to JurisdictionNegligent Training
References
30
Case No. 18-0309
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2020

Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. v. Tyler Lee

This Texas Supreme Court case concerns the intentional-injury exception to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. Tyler Lee, an employee, suffered a leg amputation due to a crane collapse while working for Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc. Lee sought damages under the intentional-injury exception, alleging Berkel's superintendent, Chris Miller, knew his actions were substantially certain to cause injury. The Supreme Court reaffirmed its precedent that the exception requires the employer to believe its actions are substantially certain to injure a *particular* employee. Finding no evidence that Miller intended to injure Lee specifically, or any particular employee, the Court concluded that Berkel’s actions constituted gross negligence, not an intentional tort. Consequently, the Court reversed the court of appeals' decision to remand for a new trial and rendered judgment for Berkel.

Workers' Compensation ActIntentional Tort ExceptionSubstantial Certainty TestEmployer LiabilityWork-related InjuryGross NegligenceCrane CollapseAmputation InjuryExclusive RemedyJury Charge Error
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 4,142 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