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

Texas Department of Corrections v. Jackson

Justice Levy dissents from the majority's decision, specifically on the second point of error concerning the lack of evidence for proximate cause. Levy argues that circumstantial evidence, including the appellee's testimony about a defective tool belt slipping and causing the shock, should be sufficient to sustain the jury's finding. Citing various precedents, Levy emphasizes considering evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of the trial court's judgment and would have affirmed the trial court's decision in all respects.

Proximate CauseCircumstantial EvidenceTool Belt DefectElectrical ShockJury FindingAppellate ReviewNo Evidence PointTrial Court JudgmentDissenting Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Pump Co. v. Allbritton

Justice Cornyn's concurring opinion in 'Allbritton's Claim' highlights the historical development of causation in American and Texas jurisprudence, criticizing the Court's opinion for conflating foreseeability and cause-in-fact. He advocates for a bifurcated causal analysis, distinguishing between cause-in-fact (using 'but for' and 'substantial factor' tests as factual inquiries) and legal/proximate cause (incorporating foreseeability and policy-based limitations on liability). Applying this framework to Sue Allbritton's injury, Justice Cornyn argues that while the defective pump was a cause-in-fact, neither Union Pump's negligence nor the defective pump was a legal cause or producing cause of her injury. This is because her injury was not foreseeable and did not occur in a natural and continuous sequence from the defect, but rather resulted from a dangerous shortcut taken after the crisis had subsided, placing her outside the scope of products liability protection. Consequently, he concurs in the Court's judgment, which effectively denies Allbritton's claim, but for the distinct reasons outlined in his analysis.

CausationNegligenceProducts LiabilityForeseeabilityCause-in-FactProducing CauseSubstantial FactorTexas Supreme CourtLegal RealismTort Law
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seong Sil Kim v. New York City Transit Authority

This dissenting opinion by Judge Gonzalez argues against the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, asserting that a rational jury could have found the New York City Transit Authority (TA) negligent and a proximate cause of Seong Sil Kim's injuries. Judge Gonzalez contends that the train operator's testimony, combined with the plaintiffs' expert analysis, provided sufficient evidence that the operator failed to adhere to safety procedures, specifically by exceeding the speed limit after a warning of a person on the tracks. The dissent also supports the Supreme Court's rejection of the TA's proximate cause arguments, stating that the jury had enough evidence to conclude the train struck the plaintiff and that her actions were not the sole proximate cause. However, Judge Gonzalez finds the jury's apportionment of fault (70% to TA, 30% to plaintiff) to be against the weight of evidence, suggesting a reapportionment of 70% to the plaintiff and 30% to the TA, unless plaintiffs stipulate otherwise, due to overwhelming evidence of the plaintiff's suicide attempt. The dissent finally rejects the TA's argument regarding the Noseworthy charge.

NegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingApportionment of FaultTrain AccidentSubway AccidentSuicide AttemptPostpartum Depression
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyd v. Schiavone Construction Co.

Plaintiff Robert Boyd, a drill operating engineer, was severely injured on a subway construction site when a drill rig he was operating tipped over, pinning him to the tracks. The incident occurred after safety chains securing the rig were removed, a procedure whose necessity and execution were disputed. Boyd filed suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the contractors, Schiavone Construction Co. and Granite Halmar Construction Company. The Supreme Court initially denied Boyd's motion for summary judgment on liability, citing a potential 'sole proximate cause' defense. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, emphasizing that contributory negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1) and found insufficient evidence to establish Boyd as the sole proximate cause of his injuries, thereby granting his motion for summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentSole Proximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate DivisionDrill Rig AccidentConstruction SafetyGravity-Related AccidentWorker InjuryFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. 07-99-0105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2000

James R. Walzier v. Newton, A.L., Dba Newton Trucking Company

James R. Walzier appealed a judgment denying him recovery against his employer, A.L. Newton d/b/a A.L. Newton Trucking Company, following a vehicle accident. Walzier alleged defective brakes, while Newton presented evidence suggesting Walzier's sole proximate cause. Walzier objected, arguing the evidence violated Texas Labor Code § 406.033 and that sole proximate cause was an unpleaded affirmative defense under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that § 406.033 does not prohibit the defense of sole proximate cause and that sole proximate cause is an inferential rebuttal issue, not an affirmative defense, thus not subject to Rule 94's pleading requirement.

Workers' CompensationSole Proximate CauseAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary ObjectionAdmissibility of EvidenceEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crown Derrick Erectors, Inc. v. Dew

Paul Dew fell to his death through a floor opening on an offshore drilling rig under construction. His family sued the rig owner, designer, and the derrick erector, Crown Derrick Erectors. A jury found negligence by all parties, including Paul Dew. Crown Derrick appealed, arguing no legal duty, no breach of duty, lack of proximate cause, and error in refusing a jury instruction on new and independent cause. The appellate court concluded that Crown Derrick owed a duty of care, and there was legally sufficient evidence of breach and proximate cause for the jury's finding. However, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial, finding that the trial court erred by refusing to submit a jury instruction on new and independent cause, which was a critical and disputed issue for the jury's determination of proximate cause.

Offshore drilling rig accidentNegligencePremises liabilityProximate causeNew and independent causeJury instruction errorAppellate reviewDuty of careBreach of dutyWorkplace safety
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hain v. Jamison

This case addresses whether Drumm Family Farm, Inc.'s alleged negligence was a proximate cause of a decedent's death. The decedent was struck and killed by a vehicle while attempting to assist a calf that had escaped from the Farm and wandered into a rural roadway. The Farm moved for summary judgment, arguing that the decedent's intervening act of entering the roadway and the other driver's negligence were the sole proximate causes. While the Appellate Division granted the Farm's motion, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that proximate cause remains a question for the factfinder. The Court reasoned that the risk created by the Farm's negligence (a wandering calf causing a collision) was precisely the risk that materialized, and the decedent's actions could be considered a foreseeable consequence.

Proximate CauseNegligenceSummary JudgmentIntervening ActForeseeabilityFarm Animal LiabilityTraffic AccidentNew York Court of AppealsTort LawCausation
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 6,767 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