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

Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. of Wisconsin v. Konvicka

Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, the insurer of A. O. Smith Corporation, sued to set aside an award granted by the Texas Industrial Accident Board to the legal beneficiaries of John Konvicka. Konvicka, an employee, died from injuries sustained after attempting to start a stalled car in the employer's parking lot and then on a public highway following a heavy rain. The insurance company argued that the injury occurred outside the scope of employment since it was off-premises and after working hours. The court, however, determined that the injury was compensable under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Act, emphasizing that the incident originated on the employer's premises and was incident to employment, aligning with the liberal construction of the statute. Consequently, the court denied the insurer's attempt to set aside the award and affirmed the beneficiaries' entitlement to compensation.

Workers' CompensationCourse of EmploymentScope of EmploymentOff-Premises InjuryCommuting HazardParking Lot InjuryTexas LawLiberal ConstructionAccidentFatal Injury
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2000

Star Enterprise v. Marze

Windel B. Marze, a truck driver, was severely injured after falling on a beam at a Texaco truck stop owned by Star Enterprise in 1994 while attempting to use an intercom to weigh his truck. The fall necessitated knee surgery, which subsequently led to a severe postoperative infection. Despite multiple attempts to control the infection, it spread throughout his body, resulting in an above-the-knee amputation and ultimately causing his death from septic shock in 1997. His surviving family, Mary Ann Marze, Lori Ann Marze, and Scott Windel Marze, along with Pacific Employer’s Insurance, initiated a premises liability suit against Star Enterprise, later amending it to include a wrongful death claim. The jury found Star Enterprise negligent and awarded the Marzes over $1.6 million in damages, a judgment affirmed by the appellate court despite Star Enterprise's arguments regarding jury charge errors and insufficient evidence.

Premises LiabilityWrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorEvidentiary ErrorMedical CausationPostoperative InfectionSeptic Shock
References
35
Case No. 02-23-00271-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2024

Russell Scott Donaldson, as Next Friend of His Grandchildren: L.A., R.A., A.A. and R.S.A., the Heirs of Robert John Aquino, III v. Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc.

Robert John Aquino, III, sued his employer, Pro-Craft General Contractors, Inc., for premises liability and employment-related negligence after sustaining an injury from a nail at a worksite. The trial court granted a no-evidence summary judgment on the premises liability claim and a take-nothing judgment on all claims, despite the motion only addressing premises liability. Aquino's heirs, through their next friend, appealed, contending that evidence existed to create a fact issue on the premises liability claim and that the judgment on the negligence claim exceeded the scope of the motion. The appellate court found that Aquino's deposition testimony provided more than a scintilla of evidence that Pro-Craft's crew created the dangerous condition, thus supporting an inference of knowledge. Additionally, the court ruled that the summary judgment on the negligence claim was erroneous as it was not addressed in the underlying motion. The trial court's summary judgment was therefore reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings.

Premises LiabilityEmployment NegligenceSummary JudgmentNo-Evidence MotionDangerous ConditionEmployer LiabilityTexas Appellate LawAppellate ReviewCase ReversalCase Remand
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07851
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2020

Bodlovic v. Giannoutsos

Miodrag Bodlovic, a plaintiff, sustained personal injuries while working for Gigi Salon & Spa due to a malfunctioning rollup gate. He and his wife sued the premises owners, Frank Giannoutsos, Paraskevi Giannoutsos, and Vasiliki Giannoutsos, alleging negligence. The Giannoutsos defendants, named as additional insureds on Gigi Salon's commercial general liability policy with United States Liability Insurance Company (USLIC), sought a declaration that USLIC was obligated to defend and indemnify them. USLIC moved for summary judgment, arguing a bodily injury exclusion in its policy precluded coverage. However, the Supreme Court, Queens County, denied this motion, finding an exception to the exclusion for liability assumed under an 'insured contract,' which in this case was the lease agreement between Gigi Salon and the Giannoutsos defendants. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that USLIC failed to demonstrate, prima facie, that the defendants were not entitled to coverage.

Insurance policyAdditional insuredSummary judgmentBodily injury exclusionInsured contractLease agreementIndemnificationAppellate reviewCoverage disputePremises liability
References
10
Case No. E2002-01783-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Johann Wolmarans v. Lifestyle Furnishings

Johann Roshe Wolmarans sued Lifestyle Furnishings for injuries sustained on its premises, seeking damages under premises liability and worker's compensation. The Trial Court found Wolmarans to be an independent contractor, dismissing the worker's compensation claim. A jury subsequently found that the premises liability injury was entirely due to Wolmarans' own fault. Wolmarans appealed the judgment, raising multiple issues. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, citing the absence of an evidence transcript, the lack of a motion for a new trial regarding the premises liability claim, and the frivolous nature of at least one issue raised on appeal.

Premises LiabilityWorker's Compensation ClaimIndependent Contractor StatusJury VerdictAppellate ReviewAffirmation of JudgmentRemand for CostsPro Se RepresentationTranscript AbsenceMotion for New Trial Requirement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

The Tennessee Supreme Court re-examined its long-standing rule from Woods v. Warren regarding workers' compensation liability for employees injured while traveling to or from work. The case involved a Wal-Mart employee who slipped on ice in the company-designated parking lot after her shift. The trial court had granted summary judgment for the employer, citing the "special hazard" requirement. Acknowledging the inconsistencies and unworkability of the prior rule under the material evidence standard, the Court adopted a new, clearer standard for accidents occurring on or after July 1, 1985. The new rule states that an employee on the employer's premises, including employer-provided parking, while coming or going from work is acting in the course of employment, regardless of public access to the parking area. The Court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this revised premises rule.

Premises LiabilityGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Hazard DoctrineRequired Route ExceptionSummary Judgment ReversalTennessee Supreme CourtJudicial Standard of ReviewDe Novo Review AdoptionEmployee Parking AreaSlip and Fall Injury
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burkett v. Welborn

Kenneth Burkett and his wife, Betty, sued Rosalie Welborn and Leslie Welborn for negligence and premises liability after Kenneth was injured while salvaging a trailer. Burkett, an employee of Electro-Motor, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits but argued his injury was outside the scope of employment and Rosalie Welborn owed him a duty as an invitee. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, citing workers' compensation exclusivity. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding Burkett was within the scope of employment. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the premises liability issue against Rosalie Welborn, determining that her co-employee status did not negate her potential liability as a landowner to an invitee, and factual disputes existed regarding premises defects.

NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDual Capacity DoctrineInvitee StatusCo-employee ImmunityTexas Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. 01-19-00300-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2021

Michelle Hudson v. Memorial Hospital System

Michelle Hudson sued Memorial Hospital System, Memorial Hermann Health System, ThyssenKrupp Elevator Corporation, and C.B. Richard Ellis, Inc. for personal injuries sustained in a malfunctioning elevator on Memorial Hermann's property. Hudson, an employee of Memorial Hermann (a non-subscriber under the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act), alleged the defendants were negligent and liable under premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Hudson appealed, arguing the trial court incorrectly applied premises liability principles instead of ordinary negligence and that genuine issues of material fact existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Hudson's claim against Memorial Hermann sounded exclusively in premises liability and she failed to preserve her argument. The court also found Hudson provided insufficient evidence to overcome the no-evidence summary judgment for CBRE and ThyssenKrupp.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityOrdinary NegligenceSummary JudgmentElevator AccidentWorkers' Compensation Non-subscriberEmployer DutyProperty Manager LiabilityMaintenance ServicesAppellate Review
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Sonic Drive-In of Angleton, Inc.

Majorie Marie Hall, an employee of Sonic Drive-In, sued Sonic and its manager, Michael Cantrell, for premises liability, assault, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hall was injured when she cut her hand on a freezer cover left on the floor. Later, Cantrell allegedly assaulted her by grabbing her wrist to make her hold a french-fry scooper. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Sonic and Cantrell on all claims. Hall appealed, arguing that material fact issues existed for her premises liability claim, the assault claim was improperly dismissed based on a faulty interpretation of intent, and the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not even addressed in the summary judgment motion. The appellate court reversed and remanded the trial court's judgment, finding that Hall raised genuine issues of material fact for premises liability, that an 'intent to injure' is not the only element for assault, and that the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was not properly addressed by the summary judgment motion.

Premises LiabilityAssaultIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment AppealEmployer LiabilityEmployee InjuryWorkplace SafetyForeseeabilityCause-in-FactActual Knowledge
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 5,646 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