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
Jun 30, 1937

Cocke & Braden v. Ayer

The case concerns Ewell J. Ayer, who suffered personal injuries after being struck by a truck driven by Ed Foran. Ayer secured a judgment for $19,000 against Foran and his employers, Cocke & Braden. The Court of Civil Appeals, Seventh District, certified questions to the Commission of Appeals, Section A, primarily asking whether Foran was an independent contractor. The opinion details the contractual agreement and testimony regarding Cocke & Braden's control over Foran's work. After reviewing the facts and applicable precedents, the Commission of Appeals affirmed that Foran was, as a matter of law, an independent contractor. This decision rendered a second certified question immaterial.

Independent ContractorVicarious LiabilityTort LawCertified QuestionsTexas LawMaster-Servant RelationshipControl TestEmployment LawTrucking AccidentPersonal Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. LTG Lufttechnische GmbH

The Supreme Court of Tennessee addressed two certified questions from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee concerning product liability actions. The central issue was whether defendants could present evidence of the plaintiff's employer's actions (alteration, improper maintenance, or abnormal use of the product) as contributing to the plaintiff's injuries, despite the employer's tort immunity under workers' compensation law. The Court affirmed that such evidence is admissible to establish cause-in-fact. However, the jury may not assess fault against the employer, ensuring the employer's immunity is maintained while allowing defendants to present a complete defense. The Court declined to reconsider its prior ruling in Ridings v. Ralph M. Parsons Co. and deemed the second certified question unnecessary to address.

Products LiabilityComparative FaultEmployer ImmunityWorkers' CompensationCause-in-FactProximate CauseStrict LiabilityNegligenceCertified QuestionsTennessee Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kittelstad v. Losco Group, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, and common-law negligence. The court addressed whether Jacobs and Clean Air were statutory agents of the property owner (the State). Jacobs's contractual obligations and superintendent's authority indicated comprehensive oversight, raising a question of fact regarding its agency status. Clean Air also retained significant supervisory authority over its subcontractor, Campbell, despite its claims to the contrary, thus establishing a question of fact regarding its control. Additionally, the court found Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) applicable and held that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Clean Air should not have been dismissed due to questions of fact concerning dangerous conditions or notice. Consequently, Clean Air was not entitled to summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Campbell.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentSupervisory AuthorityNegligenceIndemnificationIssues of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2004

Bradley v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The plaintiff, a construction worker, was injured after slipping on a water-accumulated elevated construction platform and falling approximately four feet. The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) claims, and granting the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The appellate court modified the order by denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability, citing a question of fact regarding the absence of a required safety device. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment concerning Labor Law § 241 (6), based on alleged violations of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and questions of fact regarding notice of the slippery condition. Furthermore, the denial of the defendants' motion for summary judgment on common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action was also affirmed due to triable issues of fact concerning the defendants' notice of the dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentSlip and FallElevated WorkWorkplace SafetyNegligenceIndustrial CodeAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carr v. United Parcel Service

The case addresses a certified question from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee concerning individual liability under the Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA). Plaintiff Kelly Carr alleged sexual harassment against her employer, United Parcel Service (UPS), and three UPS employees. The individual defendants moved for judgment, arguing they could not be held individually liable. The Tennessee Supreme Court held that the THRA's 'agent of an employer' language does not impose individual liability, aligning with federal interpretations of Title VII. While the THRA provides for accomplice liability for individuals who aid, abet, incite, compel, or command an employer's discriminatory practice, the Court found no evidence under the certified facts to hold the non-supervisory and supervisory defendants individually liable for either co-worker harassment or supervisor-created hostile work environment, as their actions did not constitute aiding and abetting the employer's failure to take remedial action.

Sexual HarassmentTennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)Individual LiabilityEmployer LiabilityTitle VIICertified Question of LawRespondeat SuperiorAiding and AbettingHostile Work EnvironmentQuid Pro Quo Harassment
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tafuro v. Transportation Displays, Inc.

The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, denying the defendant's motion, reinstating the complaint, and remanding the case for further proceedings. A subsequent order granting reargument was dismissed as academic. The appellate court found that the plaintiff's testimony, along with affidavits from a co-worker and supervisor, were sufficient to establish a question of fact regarding whether the defendant created the dangerous condition that caused the plaintiff's injury. The presence of other individuals in the area merely created a question of fact concerning causation by the defendant.

Summary JudgmentReversedRemandedNegligenceDangerous ConditionCausationQuestion of FactPersonal InjuryAppellate DivisionSupreme Court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2011

Nepomuceno v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a registered nurse, was injured after slipping on fruit outside her defendant employer's hospital while on her way to work. The motion court initially denied the defendant hospital's summary judgment motion, relying on the rejected 'dual capacity' doctrine and finding the action not barred by the Workers' Compensation Law. However, the appellate court reversed, stating that questions of fact or mixed questions of fact and law regarding workers' compensation availability must first be determined by the Workers' Compensation Board. Therefore, the matter was remanded for the motion court to refer the case to the Board for a hearing to determine the availability of workers' compensation.

Workers' CompensationDual Capacity DoctrineSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySlip and FallJurisdictional DisputeRemandAppellate ReversalMotion PracticeEmployment Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blandin v. Marathon Equipment Co.

Dawson E. Blandin, an employee, died after falling into a waste compaction baler. His wife, as administrator of his estate, sued the baler manufacturer, alleging defective and negligent design due to inadequate safety features and lack of warnings. The defendant moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied. The appellate court affirmed this denial, ruling that expert testimony raised sufficient questions of fact regarding whether the baler was reasonably safe and whether its design was a substantial factor in the death. Additionally, the court found questions of fact existed regarding whether the addition of a service platform by the employer constituted a substantial modification of the baler, negating manufacturer liability.

Workplace safetyProduct liabilityNegligent designDefective designSummary judgmentExpert testimonySubstantial modificationCausationForeseeabilityWaste compaction baler
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haussecker v. Childs

Joseph Haussecker, a former sandblaster, developed respiratory problems in 1967 and suspected silicosis, filing a worker's compensation claim in 1968, which was dismissed in 1972 due to lack of medical diagnosis. He was finally diagnosed with silicosis in April 1990. The Hausseckers then contacted attorney Jerry Childs for a product liability suit, but he advised them that the statute of limitations had run. They subsequently filed a legal malpractice suit against Childs, alleging a fact question regarding the discovery rule's application to the statute of limitations for their silicosis claim. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment for Childs, finding a fact question exists as to when Haussecker, through reasonable diligence, should have discovered the permanent nature of his occupational disease.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsDiscovery RuleSilicosisOccupational DiseaseLatent Onset DiseaseSummary JudgmentNegligenceAttorney DutyMedical Diagnosis
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1999

Sanzone v. National Elevator Inspection Service, Inc.

This appellate court modified an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning summary judgment motions. The initial order had granted summary judgment to National Elevator Inspection Service (NEIS) but denied it for Millar Elevator Industries (Millar). The appellate court determined that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to NEIS, as there was a question of fact regarding whether NEIS assumed a tort duty by conducting a City-mandated elevator safety inspection, potentially breaching it through negligence and causing plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Millar, citing unresolved questions of fact about Millar's role in the elevator's maintenance and repair at the time of the accident. Consequently, the order was modified to deny NEIS's motion and otherwise affirmed.

Summary JudgmentElevator SafetyNegligent InspectionDuty of CareTort LiabilityForeseeable HarmInsurance UnderwritingWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewQuestions of Fact
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,212 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