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

Kellar v. Inductotherm Corp.

Plaintiffs James D. Kellar, a foundry worker, and his wife, filed a products liability action against the manufacturer of a channel furnace. Kellar was injured when he was struck by scrap metal, became dazed, and fell into an unguarded pit surrounding the furnace at Vestal Manufacturing Company, his employer. The furnace was sold to Vestal in 1971, and Vestal installed it with platforms, creating the pit. Vestal also attached a rear deck from the defendant, which partially covered the pit when the furnace was horizontal. Plaintiffs argued the furnace was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of a guard for the pit and a failure to warn. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the defect was in Vestal's installation, not their product, and that the danger was obvious. The court, applying Tennessee law, granted the defendant's motion, ruling that liability under Section 402A only applies if the manufacturer's product itself is defective and causes harm, and that the open pit was created by Vestal, not the defendant. Furthermore, the court found the danger of the unguarded pit was obvious to the plaintiff.

products liabilityfoundry accidentunguarded pitmanufacturing defectfailure to warnobvious dangerjudgment notwithstanding the verdictcomponent part liabilityemployer liabilityworker injury
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1988

Drew v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Plaintiff was injured when a skyworker or bucket hoist collapsed while he was performing elevated work for his employer at property owned by defendant Rockwell International Corporation. Plaintiff's complaint included a cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1), and he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under this statute. The court found that a skyworker, although not specifically listed, is functionally similar to devices covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The collapse of the safety device established a prima facie statutory violation and proximate cause, shifting the burden to the defendant. The court determined that a design or manufacturing defect causing a safety device to collapse results in absolute liability for the owner. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted and, as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawAbsolute LiabilitySkyworker CollapseSafety Device FailureProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDesign DefectManufacturing DefectElevated Work
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1969

Hedges Manufacturing Co. v. Worley

Curtis A. Davis, with a pre-existing 70% disability, sustained a new injury in August 1967 while employed by Hedges Manufacturing Co. The trial court found Davis 30% permanently partially disabled from the 1967 injury and 100% permanently and totally disabled from the combined injuries, awarding benefits against Hedges/Aetna and the Second Injury Fund. The initial judgment was set aside and amended due to incorrect computation of liability and credits for temporary total disability payments. The amended judgment awarded Davis $5,040.00 from Hedges Manufacturing Co. and Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. and $8,818.00 from the Second Injury Fund. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's amended judgment, overruling assignments of error regarding credit for temporary total disability payments and computation method.

Workers' CompensationSecond Injury FundPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityDisability BenefitsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer LiabilityInsurer LiabilityPre-existing Condition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Salvatore D'Amico v. Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co.

Salvatore D'Amico, a window-washer, sued for injuries after falling from a ladder at 4 New York Plaza. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from various parties. This appellate court modified that order, granting partial summary judgment to D'Amico against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (building owner) and Cross and Brown Company (managing agent) under Labor Law §240(1), which imposes absolute liability for failing to provide adequate safety devices. The court found that the ladder's cracking established a prima facie case. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for MHT and Cross and Brown's indemnification claims against Allied Maintenance Corp. (D'Amico's employer), stating that Allied's liability for contribution would depend on the jury's apportionment of fault and the negligence of MHT and Cross and Brown.

Ladder AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityIndemnificationPremises LiabilityLabor Law §240(1)Window Washer InjuryWorker SafetyAppellate ReviewContributory Negligence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perth Amboy Drydock Co. v. New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance

This case concerns the interpretation of an insurance policy issued to Perth Amboy Drydock Co. by New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance. The policy provided workmen's compensation and employer's liability coverage, primarily for 'shipwright work' employees. The core dispute revolved around an endorsement that expanded liability limits. While the endorsement's heading mentioned 'Masters or Members of the Crews of Vessels', a typewritten addendum at its foot broadened its application to 'Shipwright Work and operation of Tugboats'. The court affirmed the order and judgment, holding that the typewritten statement should prevail, resolving any ambiguity in favor of the insured. A dissenting opinion argued against this interpretation, asserting that the language was clear and restricted to maritime employees.

Insurance PolicyWorkmen's CompensationEmployer's LiabilityPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationAmbiguityShipwright WorkMaritime LawAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schaefer

Gary Schaefer sued American Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Company (AMM) after his vehicle was damaged and repaired, claiming the policy should cover the diminished market value. Schaefer argued the policy's 'repair or replace' language included compensating for market depreciation. AMM contended that 'repair' refers only to tangible restoration, and the policy's liability limits did not extend to diminished value for adequately repaired vehicles. The Texas Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment, holding that the standard auto policy unambiguously does not obligate an insurer to pay for a vehicle's diminished market value when it has been fully and adequately repaired. The Court reasoned that 'repair' connotes tangible restoration and that Schaefer's interpretation would render other policy provisions meaningless.

diminished valueauto insuranceinsurance policy interpretationcontract constructionmarket valuevehicle repairliability limitTexas lawpolicy languagedirect loss
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conkle v. Builders Concrete Products Manufacturing Co.

The parents of Douglas Conkle sued his employer, Builders Concrete Products Manufacturing Company, and the manufacturer of a concrete batch plant, Dillon Steel, for damages resulting from his death. The trial court granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the Worker's Compensation Act, and for the manufacturer, based on a 10-year statute of limitations for improvements to real property. The court of appeals affirmed. This court affirmed the summary judgment for the employer but reversed the summary judgment for Dillon Steel, finding a factual issue regarding whether the machinery was an 'improvement to real property' under TEX.CIV.PRAC. & REM.CODE § 16.009, or merely component parts, thus remanding the case for further proceedings concerning the manufacturer.

Texas LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathStatute of LimitationsImprovement to Real PropertyComponent PartsEmployer LiabilityManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7263382
Regular
Dec 24, 2015

Grace Navarro vs. CITY OF OXNARD HOUSING AUTHORITY, PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCE, AMERICAN CLAIMS MANAGEMENT, DELOS INSURANCE, IMPERIUM INSURANCE, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board reviewed a dispute over which insurance carrier was liable for applicant Grace Navarro's cumulative trauma injury. The initial arbitrator found only Pennsylvania Manufacturers Association Insurance Company liable, excluding Delos Insurance. Pennsylvania Manufacturers sought reconsideration, arguing Delos should share liability based on its coverage period. After reviewing the complete evidence, the Appeals Board affirmed the original arbitrator's decision, finding Pennsylvania Manufacturers solely liable.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDGRACE NAVARROCITY OF OXNARD HOUSING AUTHORITYPENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION INSURANCEDELOS INSURANCEIMPERIUM INSURANCEATHENS ADMINISTRATORSADJ7263382RECONSIDERATIONCUMULATIVE TRAUMA
References
0
Case No. M1999-00021-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2000

Fahrner v. SW Manufacturing

This case involves an appeal by SW Manufacturing, Inc. against the trial court's denial of their motion for judgment on the pleadings in an employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge case brought by Andrew Fahrner. Fahrner argued that the discovery rule should extend to his claims, as he only became aware of the alleged retaliatory motive for his termination in March 1998, despite being discharged in November 1997. The Court of Appeals of Tennessee, in Nashville, reviewed the case de novo and found no legal basis to extend the discovery rule to retaliatory discharge and discrimination claims. The court concluded that the one-year statute of limitations began when Fahrner received unequivocal notice of his termination in November 1997, and his complaint, filed in December 1998, was therefore untimely. The Court reversed the trial court's decision, granting SW Manufacturing's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Retaliatory DischargeEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleMotion for Judgment on PleadingsAppellate ReviewAccrual of Cause of ActionUnequivocal Notice of TerminationTennessee Court of AppealsTort Law
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 5,615 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