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

Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Collins, an employee of the government’s National Park Service, was injured on Ellis Island while using a stump grinder manufactured by defendant Promark Products, Inc. Plaintiff, who had been receiving workers’ compensation benefits, initiated a products liability action against Promark. Promark subsequently impleaded the United States government, alleging negligence in machine maintenance and inadequate instruction. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that New Jersey law should apply under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would bar the third-party action as workers' compensation would be the sole liability. The court examined an 1833 agreement between New Jersey and New York, consented to by Congress, establishing jurisdictional and territorial limits. The court concluded that New York law applies to the areas on Ellis Island where the tort occurred, granting New York exclusive jurisdiction despite New Jersey's property rights to the underwater land. Consequently, the government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityFederal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterstate CompactEllis IslandGovernment Liability
References
4
Case No. No. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. MDL No. 1038
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2002

In Re Norplant Contraceptive Products Liability Litigation

This multidistrict products liability action involved thousands of plaintiffs alleging injuries from the Norplant contraceptive device against American Home Products Corporation and its subsidiaries. The court considered two motions for partial summary judgment. The first, concerning the 'learned intermediary doctrine' and 26 primary side effects, was granted in part and denied for 10 plaintiffs whose cases were governed by New Jersey law due to an advertising exception. The second motion, addressing over 950 'exotic conditions' for which no causation evidence was presented, was granted against all plaintiffs. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment against 2,960 plaintiffs, effectively concluding the MDL proceedings for the majority of the non-settling cases.

Products LiabilityNorplantContraceptive DeviceLearned Intermediary DoctrineCausationSummary JudgmentMultidistrict LitigationFailure to WarnPharmaceuticalsTexas Law
References
61
Case No. 01 Civ. 6060; 01 Civ. 6062; 01 Civ. 11878; 02 Civ. 1719; 02 Civ. 1724; 02 Civ. 9952
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Rezulin Products Liability Litigation

Defendants Pfizer, Inc. sought summary judgment against nine plaintiffs in an MDL concerning the diabetes drug Rezulin. The plaintiffs claimed either no injury, fear of future injury, or subcellular mitochondrial damage. The court ruled that while subcellular injury might establish Article III standing, it was not a compensable injury under Texas law without a clinically manifest detriment. Similarly, claims for fear of future injury failed under both Texas and Louisiana law due to the absence of a manifest physical injury or special circumstances. Economic claims for fraud and redhibition under Louisiana law were also dismissed. Consequently, the court granted Pfizer's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims of the specified plaintiffs.

Product LiabilitySummary JudgmentNo-Injury ClaimsFear of Future InjuryMitochondrial DamageSubcellular InjuryArticle III StandingTexas LawLouisiana Products Liability ActEconomic Damages
References
10
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

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2015

Gesualdi v. Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees and Fiduciaries of various Local 282 Welfare, Pension, Annuity, Job Training, and Vacation and Sick Leave Trust Funds, initiated an action against Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc. to recover unpaid liabilities and contributions. This action arose from two audits that identified delinquent contributions and the defendant's complete withdrawal from the Funds. Following Seacoast Petroleum Products, Inc.'s default, the Plaintiffs moved for a default judgment. United States Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke recommended granting the motion and awarding specific damages. District Judge Spatt subsequently adopted the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, granting the default judgment and ordering damages totaling $156,898.74, along with daily interest, liquidated damages, audit fees, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Default JudgmentERISAUnpaid ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsMulti-employer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementPrejudgment InterestLiquidated Damages
References
48
Case No. 01-08-00591-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2009

Air Products & Chemicals Inc. v. Odfjell Seachem A/S, Odfjell Asia Pte. Ltd., and Odfjell Singapore Pte., Ltd

Air Products & Chemicals, Inc. (AP) sued Odfjell Seachem A/S and related entities (Seachem) alleging negligence after Seachem's vessel, the Bow Favour, discharged chemicals into AP's storage tank, causing product contamination. AP appealed the trial court's judgment, challenging four key rulings: the denial of its motion to amend pleadings to include negligence per se, the refusal to instruct the jury on negligence per se, the admission of certain hearsay testimony, and the instruction to apportion liability between Seachem and a settled defendant. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the pleading amendment or jury instruction. It also concluded any hearsay error was harmless given cumulative evidence, and deemed the apportionment issue immaterial since the jury found Seachem not negligent.

NegligenceNegligence Per SePleading AmendmentJury InstructionHearsay EvidenceApportionment of FaultHazardous Material SpillProduct ContaminationVessel OperationsTrial Court Discretion
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 5,924 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