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. E2013-02708-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

Danny Long v. Quad Power Products, LLC

Danny Long suffered a severe arm injury, leading to amputation, when a ball valve mechanism broke while he was pressure testing. He and his wife, Geraldine Long, filed a product liability complaint against four companies, alleging negligence and failure to warn. Mr. Long's employer, Alstom Power, Inc., joined as an intervening plaintiff. After Mr. Long's death, Ms. Long continued the suit. The case eventually narrowed to a strict liability claim against Southern Fluidpower, Inc., based on failure to warn about pressure capacity and corrosion in water systems. The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern Fluidpower, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Southern's alleged failure to warn caused Mr. Long's injury, attributing the cause in fact to Alstom's negligence in assembling and using a known faulty valve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Alstom's actions were an intervening cause.

Product LiabilityWorkplace InjuryAmputationFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCausation in FactIntervening CauseTennessee Products Liability ActBall Valve Failure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gelber v. Stryker Corp.

Jeanette Gelber and Hugh Gelber sued Stryker Corporation, Howmedica Osteonics, and Stryker Orthopedics, Inc., collectively 'Stryker,' for medical device liability concerning a defective Trident hip replacement system. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of warranty, strict products liability, and loss of consortium, stemming from a defectively manufactured device and failures to warn or report issues. Defendants moved to dismiss based on federal preemption and failure to state a claim. District Judge P. Kevin Castel partially granted and partially denied the motion, allowing defective manufacturing claims (negligence and strict products liability) and certain express warranty claims to proceed. Other claims, including failure to warn, failure to report, and implied warranty, were dismissed due to preemption or statute of limitations.

Medical Device LiabilityProduct LiabilityFederal Preemption DoctrineMedical Device Amendments Act (MDA)Strict Products LiabilityNegligence ClaimsBreach of Express WarrantyDefective ManufacturingClass III Medical DeviceHip Prosthesis
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whitehead v. Dycho Co., Inc.

This products liability case involves Jo Ann Whitehead, who was severely injured in an explosion caused by naphtha, a chemical supplied by multiple defendants to her employer, Magnavox. Whitehead alleged strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Magnavox a "sophisticated user" and "learned intermediary," and that Whitehead's product use was unforeseeable. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that the defendants had adequately warned Magnavox, and Magnavox's failure to warn its employees constituted an independent intervening act that broke the causal connection. The Supreme Court found no proximate causation between the defendants' alleged failure to warn and Whitehead's injuries.

Products LiabilityFailure to WarnNaphtha ExplosionSophisticated User ExceptionLearned Intermediary DoctrineProximate CauseIntervening ActSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityChemical Hazards
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Insurance v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co.

A fire occurred on January 1, 2010, at a garage owned by the Town of Dannemora Highway Department, involving a Samsung Loader. Unnamed insurance companies, subrogated to the Town, sued Volvo Construction Equipment (manufacturer of the Samsung Loader) for negligent design, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Both parties moved to exclude expert testimonies, which the court largely denied, stating issues raised pertain to weight, not admissibility. Defendants also sought summary judgment, which was granted for failure to warn and manufacturing defect claims (as plaintiffs withdrew them), but denied for design defect and negligence claims, allowing plaintiffs' expert to testify on alternative designs. The court emphasized the liberal standard for expert qualification and that disputes about credentials go to weight, not admissibility.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardProduct LiabilityDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationNFPA 921SubrogationVolvo Construction Equipment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 1997

Riley v. Champion International Corp.

This case involves a lawsuit brought by Charles and Helen Riley against Champion International Corporation. Charles Riley, an independent logging contractor, contracted Lyme disease from a tick bite on Champion's property. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, gross negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract for Champion's failure to warn about Lyme disease, and Helen Riley claimed loss of consortium and household services. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on most tort claims but denying it for breach of contract. The Chief Judge adopted parts of this, affirming summary judgment on premises liability and misrepresentation negligence claims. However, the Chief Judge overruled the Magistrate Judge's conclusion on the "increased risk of harm" prong of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 323, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Champion's failure to provide safety information increased the risk of developing a chronic Lyme infection. Consequently, claims for breach of contract, negligent performance, gross negligence, loss of consortium, loss of household services, and punitive damages were revived for trial.

NegligenceBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLyme DiseaseIndependent ContractorDuty to WarnAssumed DutyGross NegligenceLoss of Consortium
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Saenz

General Motors Corporation appealed a jury verdict finding it liable for strict liability and negligence due to a failure to adequately warn. The case originated from an accident involving a GM truck chassis, which was significantly modified by Sascon with a large water tank, leading to a high center of gravity and overloading. Two drivers, Josué Ramirez and Ricardo Saenz, died when a tire blowout caused the overloaded truck to roll. The jury apportioned 70% liability to GM for inadequate warnings and 30% to Sascon for improper modification. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, establishing GM's duty to warn against foreseeable modifications and known risks, and upheld findings of inadequate warnings and gross negligence, along with the punitive damages award.

Strict LiabilityNegligenceProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnTruck OverloadingVehicle ModificationForeseeability of RiskComparative CausationPunitive DamagesDue Process
References
42
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. 11-20-00208-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2022

Samuel Adams Flores v. Oil-Tech Construction, LLC

Samuel Adams Flores sued his former employer, Oil-Tech Construction, LLC, for personal injuries sustained while at work, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, gross negligence, and malice. Flores suffered a knee injury when stepping down from the flatbed of his work pickup. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oil-Tech. On appeal, the Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision on the claims of duty to warn, duty to train, negligence per se, and gross negligence. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the negligence claim concerning Oil-Tech's alleged failure to provide a necessary instrumentality, finding a factual dispute on whether a step was essential for safe job performance.

Personal InjuryEmployer NegligenceSummary JudgmentDuty to WarnDuty to TrainNecessary InstrumentalityNegligence Per SeGross NegligenceWorker SafetyTexas Law
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 9,121 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