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
May 14, 2007

Applegate v. Long Island Power Authority

The plaintiff, a highway maintenance worker, appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants Keyspan Corporation and Long Island Power Authority. The plaintiff was injured when a utility cover collapsed while she was collecting debris on Keyspan property. The defendants successfully argued they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the latent defect causing the collapse. The court affirmed the summary judgment, finding the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the latent defect.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLatent DefectConstructive NoticeHighway Maintenance WorkerUtility Cover CollapseAppealsSuffolk CountyProperty Owner
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hernandez v. American Appliance Manufacturing Corp.

Adam E. Suarez died from burns caused by flammable adhesive glue ignited by a water heater pilot light. His survivors, led by Blanca Suarez, sued American Appliance Manufacturing Corp. and Mor-Flo Industries, Inc. for defective design and negligence. The jury found a design defect but attributed 90% negligence to Suarez, awarding $1,605,000 in damages. However, due to comparative negligence and a settlement credit, a take-nothing judgment was entered. The appellate court affirmed, finding the jury's damage award wasn't inadequate and ample evidence supported Suarez's 90% negligence, distinguishing the case from those involving latent defects.

Wrongful deathSurvival actionProduct liabilityDefective designNegligenceComparative negligenceTake-nothing judgmentAdhesive glue ignitionBurn injuriesDamages assessment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1990

In Re Lloyd's Leasing Ltd.

This case addresses a complex limitation of liability proceeding following the structural failure of the M/T ALVENUS, which resulted in a significant crude oil spill into the Gulf of Mexico. The Court found the vessel unseaworthy due to defective manual fillet welds in the deck plating, which led to the hull's collapse under normal operating conditions. While the owner and bareboat charterer (Alvenus Shipping Co., Ltd. and Lloyd’s Leasing, Ltd.) were exonerated from general liability due to lack of privity or knowledge of these latent defects, they were held strictly liable to the United States for oil pollution cleanup costs under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Cammell Laird Shipbuilders, Ltd., as the builder, was found liable to Conoco for cargo loss and to third-party claimants for physical oil intrusion damages due to its knowledge of the defective construction. Other parties, including the voyage charterer Conoco, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the pilots, and the master, were found not liable.

Maritime LawShippingOil SpillLimitation of LiabilityUnseaworthinessDefective ConstructionVessel FailureCargo LossEnvironmental LiabilityFederal Water Pollution Control Act
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arceneaux v. Lykes Bros. Steamship Co.

This dissenting opinion concerns a longshoreman, Arceneaux, who was injured after falling from a ladder in a ship's hold after a ten-and-a-half-hour workday. Arceneaux alleged that the ladder had a defective design, causing his fall. The dissent argues against liability for the vessel owner, Lykes Brothers Steamship Co., Inc., contending that the ladder was an open and obvious condition, known and repeatedly used by Arceneaux and his fellow longshoremen. Citing the 1972 amendments to the Longshore and Harbor Worker's Compensation Act (LHWCA), the judge asserts that claims based on unseaworthiness or strict liability for defective equipment are no longer actionable against vessel owners, and the shipowner's 'turnover duty' is limited to warning of latent hazards. The dissent concludes that Arceneaux failed to demonstrate maritime negligence on the part of Lykes, and therefore, the judgment in favor of Lykes should be affirmed.

Longshoremen's ActMaritime NegligenceVessel Owner LiabilityUnseaworthiness DoctrineDefective Design ClaimsOpen and Obvious HazardsTurnover DutyStevedore Contractor Duties1972 LHWCA AmendmentsProximate Cause
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
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
Jan 08, 1999

Jehle v. Adams Hotel Associates

Lawrence Jehle, an air conditioning serviceman employed by Honeywell, was injured after falling through a buckled floor at Taylor Business Institute's premises while performing routine maintenance. Jehle sued the building owners under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200, who then brought a third-party action against Taylor. Taylor subsequently initiated a second third-party action against Honeywell, seeking contribution or indemnification for Jehle's injuries. Honeywell moved for summary judgment to dismiss Taylor's claim, arguing that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable to routine maintenance and that it had no liability under Labor Law § 200 for a latent defect outside its control. The Supreme Court denied Honeywell's motion, but the appellate court reversed, granting Honeywell's motion and dismissing Taylor's cause of action.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Routine MaintenanceLatent DefectWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewThird-Party Action
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. Marsh

Charles R. Oliver appealed a judgment awarding Michael D. Marsh $180,362.00 for injuries sustained when he fell from a storage shed owned by Oliver. Marsh, an employee of Oliver's company, Travel Quest, Inc., was working on Oliver's farm to dismantle the shed when a rotten ridge pole broke, causing him severe injuries. Oliver challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury's findings regarding a latent defect and Oliver's negligence, and also complained about the court's refusal to submit requested special questions on independent contractor, possessor of land, and business invitee status. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and concluding that the requested special questions were either not in substantially correct form or pertained to uncontroverted facts.

NegligenceLatent DefectPremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor StatusBusiness Invitee StatusWorkers' Compensation DefenseJury FindingsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,330 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