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. 12-20-00243-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2021

Bobby Martin v. WPP Properties, LLC, Jennifer M. Williams, William R. Pulley and Zachary D. Pulley

Bobby Martin, an independent contractor, sustained a fractured hip after tripping and falling down an external staircase while performing 'make ready' renovation work at the Manor Terrace Apartment complex, owned by WPP Properties, LLC. He subsequently sued WPP Properties, LLC, Jennifer M. Williams, William R. Pulley, and Zachary Pulley (Appellees) alleging negligence and premises liability. The trial court granted summary judgment for Appellees, concluding that Chapter 95 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code applied and that Appellees did not retain control over Martin's work. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Martin's work constituted 'renovation' under Chapter 95, the staircase was part of the same 'improvement' as the apartment, and Martin failed to establish a fact issue regarding Appellees' control over his work, which is a prerequisite for liability under Chapter 95.

Negligence ClaimPremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor InjurySummary Judgment AffirmationTexas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 95Property Owner ImmunityWorkplace InjuryRenovation WorkControl Over WorkActual Knowledge
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2003

Gabriel v. Boldt Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, which denied their cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff, Raun Duval Gabriel, a construction worker, was injured when a defective hoisting apparatus collapsed while he and a coworker were attempting to lift a heavy metal insert. The cross member holding the pulley collapsed, striking the plaintiff with the pulley and rope. The Appellate Division concluded that a defective hoist, collapsing during use, constitutes a falling object under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus entitling plaintiffs to partial summary judgment on liability.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction InjuryHoisting Equipment FailureFalling Object DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalWorkplace AccidentAbsolute LiabilityScaffolding LawDefective Device
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2009

Pereira v. Quogue Field Club

The defendant appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a cause of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6). The plaintiff, an employee of Century Tennis, Inc., suffered finger amputations on July 9, 2007, when his hand was pulled into an exposed pulley of a steamroller he was operating on the defendant's premises. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), attributing the injury to the lack of a pulley cover. The Supreme Court's order was modified on appeal, granting summary judgment to the defendant regarding specific Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.5, 23-1.7, 23-1.8) that the plaintiff relied upon for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found these provisions either set forth general standards or were inapplicable, but otherwise affirmed the order regarding the remaining contentions.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawIndustrial CodeWorkplace AccidentMachinery SafetyPulley AmputationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorker Safety Regulations
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03149 [238 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Sarante v. Courtlandt Dev., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a construction worker's injury. Plaintiff Jose Sarante was injured when a chain block pulley system, used to hoist a steel beam, collapsed. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for Sarante on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the pulley system to be a failed safety device. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants Courtlandt Development, LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp. on their Labor Law claims and contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant Gold Lion Steel, LLC, noting the right to indemnification had not vested. Gold Lion's motions for dismissal of third-party claims were denied due to lack of evidence regarding "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as plaintiff decided not to pursue it.

Labor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSafety DeviceChain Block Pulley SystemContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave Injury
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2003

Keaney v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a laborer for York Scaffold, sustained a fractured scapula when wooden planks fell on him while he was hoisting them at a renovation site, allegedly due to inadequate safety devices in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). A jury initially found for the plaintiff, but the trial court set aside the verdict, citing speculative causation. Upon reargument, the trial court maintained its determination. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding a rational basis for the jury's conclusion that the rope pulley failed to provide proper protection, thus reinstating the plaintiff's favorable verdict.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Falling ObjectScaffoldingHoisting AccidentJury VerdictAppellate ReviewMotion to Set Aside VerdictAbsolute Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. v. Hamilton

O. L. Hamilton, an employee of Fulfer, sustained a back injury on May 9, 1964, while lifting a head pulley. He recovered a judgment for total permanent disability benefits under the workmen's compensation law against Mountain States Mutual Casualty-Company. The company appealed, contending the trial court erred in excluding Dr. Terrell's testimony about Hamilton's positive syphilis test and its contribution to his disability. The court found this exclusion to be harmless error, as other testimony regarding Hamilton's incapacity due to other conditions was admitted. The jury's findings of permanent total incapacity and the need for a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship were upheld. The judgment for Hamilton was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityEvidentiary RulesMedical TestimonyCausationAffirmed JudgmentTexas Civil ProcedureHarmless ErrorGeneral DenialSyphilis as Disability Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shaffer v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

A plaintiff was injured on a construction site while attempting to guide a scaffolding bridge, causing him to twist his back. He was secured by a safety belt on a scaffold 14 feet above the ground, and the bridge was being lowered by a makeshift pulley controlled by a co-worker. Special Term denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240(1), citing a factual question about the lowering procedure. The appellate court, however, determined that Labor Law § 240(1) was inapplicable based on the 'falling worker or objects' test from Staples v Town of Amherst. Consequently, the order was modified, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the plaintiff's cause of action under Labor Law § 240(1).

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryConstruction SiteFalling ObjectAppellate ReviewNegligenceWorker Safety
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mid-Continent Casualty Co. v. Global Enercom Management, Inc.

This case addresses an insurance dispute between Global Enercom Management, Inc. and Mid-Continent Casualty Company concerning coverage for workers who died after a fall from a cell tower. The accident involved a rope-and-pulley system powered by a pickup truck. The court analyzed two insurance policy exclusions: an 'auto-use' exclusion and a 'subsequent-to-execution' clause. The Texas Supreme Court held that the 'auto-use' exclusion in the Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy precluded coverage, reversing the appellate court's decision on this point. However, the court affirmed that the 'subsequent-to-execution' clause in both the CGL and Commercial Auto Policy (CAP) did not bar coverage, as the subcontract was considered 'executed' prior to the incident, despite Global's delayed signature.

Insurance CoverageAuto Use ExclusionSubsequent-to-Execution ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyCommercial Auto PolicyWorkers' CompensationCell Tower AccidentDeclaratory Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mata v. Park Here Garage Corp.

Plaintiff, an independent contractor, sustained a fractured wrist after falling from a ladder while repairing a 300-pound garage gate assembly more than 10 feet above ground. The appellate court found the defendants liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices, despite the plaintiff's improvisational pulley system. The court noted that a worker's contributory negligence does not bar recovery under this section. However, the claim under Labor Law § 241 (6) was dismissed as the work was not deemed construction, demolition, or excavation. The prior order denying summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) was modified, and the plaintiff's motion was granted, remanding the matter for assessment of damages, while affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

workers' compensationindependent contractorgarage gate repairfall from heightladder accidentgravity-related injurysafety devicescontributory negligencesummary judgmentliability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

Lunde v. Nichols Yacht Sales, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiff, an employee of Nichols Yacht Yard Inc., suffered a hand injury while attempting to fix a malfunctioning boat lift. The defendant, also located on the premises, had employees instruct the plaintiff, who was not part of the trained 'yard crew,' to launch a boat using a 'big lift' when no trained personnel were available. The lift malfunctioned due to a displaced cable, and as the plaintiff attempted to correct it per defendant's instructions, his hand was pulled into a pulley. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, found the defendant 95% at fault, based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the defendant, as an owner or general contractor, owed a duty to provide a safe workplace under Labor Law §200, and that the jury's finding was supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySafe Workplace DutyLabor Law §200Jury VerdictAppellate ReviewComparative NegligenceBoat Lift AccidentEmployer LiabilityExpert Witness Testimony
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 13 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