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. 01-01-00749-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Danny R. Danny Collinsworth v. Eller Media Company

Daniel R. Collinsworth, the appellant, sued multiple appellees including Eller Media Company, Clear Channel Communications, Inc., and others, following a personal injury sustained from a 20-foot fall while working on an elevated billboard sign due to a broken ratchet strap. The trial court granted summary judgments in favor of the Media defendants, Reliable Electric Products, and Weisner Steel Products, Inc., based on arguments such as the exclusive remedy provision of the Texas Workers Compensation Act, statute of limitations, and lack of evidence linking them to the defective product. Collinsworth appealed, contending that there was insufficient time for discovery and that he was prejudiced by a lost record. The appellate court found Collinsworth waived the discovery argument by not filing appropriate motions and that the allegedly lost record was, in fact, included in the supplemental clerk's record. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's summary judgments.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation ExemptionStatute of LimitationsProduct LiabilityBillboard AccidentDiscoveryEvidence SufficiencyTexas Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guidry v. Neches Butane Products Co.

Guidry, an employee of Foster-Wheeler Corporation, sued Neches Butane Products Company for personal injuries sustained while working at Neches' plant. Foster was impleaded as a third-party defendant, and Foster impleaded Tri-Co, Inc. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company intervened. Guidry was injured when a crane's outrigger sank into unstable soil, causing a heat exchanger to strike him. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of duty and proximate cause. The court affirmed the summary judgment against Guidry, concluding that Neches had no duty to warn of a hidden defect it neither knew nor reasonably should have known existed, and that the injury was not foreseeable.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorPersonal InjuryNegligenceDuty to WarnHidden DefectsForeseeabilityProximate CauseWorkers' Compensation
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amity Leather Products Co. v. RGA Accessories, Inc.

Amity Leather Products Co. moved to hold RGA Accessories, Inc. in civil contempt for violating a prior injunction that prohibited RGA from using Amity's product photographs for its own competing products. Amity alleged RGA used a photo of its 'Macro bag' to promote the 'Petite Valise' through their joint venture, Smithy Accessories. The court found clear and convincing evidence of the violation, noting identical markings on the products in photographs. It rejected RGA's defenses of diligence and shifting blame to its joint venture partner. The court granted Amity's motion, ordering RGA to account for and pay profits from sales to J.C. Penney, cease further use of the promotional material, and issue a disclaimer to all recipients.

Contempt of CourtInjunction ViolationLanham ActFalse AdvertisingJoint Venture LiabilityCivil ContemptUnjust EnrichmentCease and DesistDisclaimerPhotographic Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cupples Products Co. v. Marshall

Diana Wright filed a gross negligence claim against Cupples Products, her husband’s employer, after his death, subsequent to settling a workers’ compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Cupples’ insurer. Wright sought discovery from Liberty Mutual, requesting statements, reports, photographs, diagrams, sketches, and accident/inspection reports related to her husband's accident. The trial court, presided over by Judge John McClellan Marshall, ordered the production of these documents for an in camera inspection. Cupples Products and Liberty Mutual, as relators, filed a petition for a writ of mandamus, contending that the documents were exempt from discovery under TEX.R.CIV.P. 166b(3)(b) and (d), arguing they were privileged communications made in connection with the investigation of the occurrence. The appellate court agreed with the relators, holding that any investigation by an agent of a party, made subsequent to the occurrence out of which the claim has arisen, is privileged and exempt from discovery, even if it was initially for a different claim (workers' compensation). The court conditionally granted the petition for the writ of mandamus, expecting the trial judge to vacate the discovery orders.

Discovery DisputeMandamusPrivileged CommunicationsWork Product DoctrineGross NegligenceWorkers' CompensationInsurance InvestigationTexas Rules of Civil ProcedureIn Camera InspectionWitness Statements
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Relco, Inc. v. Consumer Product Safety Commission

Thomas Doss and Releo, Inc. (plaintiffs) filed an action seeking to enjoin the Consumers Product Safety Commission (CPSC) from enforcing certain sections of the Consumers Product Safety Act against their product, the "Wel-Dex" arc welder, and requested a three-judge panel for constitutional questions. The CPSC had issued a public warning about the Wel-Dex after an investigation, despite the plaintiffs' attempts to secure a prior hearing. The plaintiffs challenged the CPSC's delegation of authority for issuing such warnings and sought pre-enforcement judicial review. The court, presided over by District Judge Noel, determined that the plaintiffs had not exhausted their administrative remedies and that the matter was not ripe for judicial review. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the cause was dismissed.

Consumer Product Safety ActAdministrative LawAgency DiscretionSubdelegation of AuthorityPublic WarningPre-enforcement ReviewExhaustion of Administrative RemediesRipeness for ReviewThree-Judge CourtDue Process
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dodd v. Texas Farm Products

Appellant Dodd sued Texas Farm Products Co. for personal injuries sustained when a retaining wall and potash collapsed on him after he and a co-worker blasted to loosen material. A jury initially found appellee negligent for failing to inspect the wall after the blast, awarding $86,000 in damages, and did not find Dodd contributorily negligent. However, the trial court granted appellee's motion for judgment non obstante veredicto. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding there was no evidence that Texas Farm Products Co. knew or should have known of the dangerous condition of the retaining wall, which was apparently caused by the explosion set off by the appellant and his foreman.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityJudgment Non Obstante VeredictoJury VerdictAppellate ReviewIndustrial AccidentEmployer's DutyHidden DangerAssumption of Risk
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc.

Samuel Passante was injured while operating a dock leveler at his workplace, leading him and his wife to sue his employer, the manufacturer (Rite-Hite), and the seller (Mullen) for defective design and failure to warn. The Supreme Court denied Mullen's summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's order, modifying it to reinstate the claims for defective design and failure to warn. The court found triable issues of fact concerning whether the dock leveler was unreasonably dangerous without an optional trailer restraint system and the adequacy of existing warnings regarding its use.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentDock LevelerIndustrial AccidentOptional Safety FeatureRisk-Utility AssessmentIndustrial Equipment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,290 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