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

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. 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. 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. 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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laniok v. Advisory Committee of the Brainerd Manufacturing Co. Pension Plan

Plaintiff Peter Laniok sued his former employer, Brainerd Manufacturing Company, under ERISA for denying him pension benefits. Laniok argued the waiver he signed, which foreclosed his participation in the company's pension plan due to his age, was void against public policy and violated ERISA's age discrimination provisions and the ADEA. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting the waiver was valid. The court determined that ERISA does not prohibit an employee from knowingly and voluntarily waiving pension rights and found no violation of ERISA's age discrimination provision or ADEA. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Brainerd Manufacturing Company.

ERISAPension BenefitsWaiverAge DiscriminationADEASummary JudgmentEmployee RightsRetirement PlanDefined Benefit PlanPublic Policy
References
14
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. 14-14-00172-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2015

Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Joseph Favalora

Joseph Favalora, an employee of Katy Springs & Manufacturing, Inc., suffered injuries while working on a manufacturing line when an unsafe pay-off reel malfunctioned, causing a wire to strike him. A jury found Katy Springs liable for negligence and awarded Favalora compensatory damages, including past and future mental anguish. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment but modified it by deleting the $100,000 award for future mental anguish, finding insufficient evidence to support it. The court, however, upheld the jury's findings on negligence, causation, and awards for past medical expenses and physical impairment.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityUnsafe EquipmentCausationDamagesMedical ExpensesMental AnguishPhysical ImpairmentJury Verdict
References
94
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co. v. Rubberized Novelty & Plastic Fabric Workers' Union, Local 98

Paramount Bag Manufacturing Co., Inc. sought to stay arbitration of a labor dispute with Rubberized Novelty and Plastic Fabric Workers’ Union, Local 98, I.L.G.W.U. The dispute arose after Paramount terminated its manufacturing operations but continued dealing in similar products, leading the union to claim violations of collective bargaining agreements regarding work preservation. Paramount argued the court lacked jurisdiction, that the agreement's relevant clause was an illegal 'hot cargo' clause, and that the agreement was procured by fraud. The District Court denied Paramount's motion to remand and for summary judgment, granting the union's motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed federal jurisdiction under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act and held that the arbitrability of the dispute, including claims of illegality and fraud, falls within the broad arbitration clauses of the collective bargaining agreements.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementHot Cargo ClauseWork Preservation ClauseFraud in InducementJurisdictionSummary JudgmentNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,870 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