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

Jennings v. Illinois Central Railroad

Theo Jennings, a trackman, sustained a disabling knee injury when a 'dry rotted' maul handle broke during spike driving. He sued Illinois Central Railroad Company under the Federal Employer’s Liability Act (FELA), alleging negligence due to an unsafe workplace and equipment. The trial court granted summary judgment for the Railroad. On appeal, the court affirmed, ruling that Jennings presented insufficient evidence of the Railroad's negligence. The court dismissed arguments regarding maul exposure and prior breakages as speculative and determined that using a maul was not inherently unsafe, thus not requiring the Railroad to provide automated alternatives.

Federal Employers Liability ActRailroad IndustryWorkplace SafetyDefective ToolsSummary Judgment AppealNegligence ClaimDry RotMauls and SpikesEmployee InjuryEvidence Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri Pacific Railroad Company v. Mendoza

This negligence case, filed under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), involves plaintiff Mendoza, an employee of the Railroad Company, who suffered injuries while replacing a locomotive brake shoe. A fellow worker's failure to use a proper tool caused the heavy brake shoe to fall, forcing Mendoza to lift it from an awkward, strained position. The jury found the Railroad Company negligent for unsafe work conditions and inadequate equipment, awarding Mendoza $35,000. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting claims of insufficient evidence and excessive damages, emphasizing the broad interpretation of employer negligence under FELA.

NegligenceFederal Employers' Liability Act (FELA)Workplace InjuryBrake Shoe ReplacementRailroad SafetyProximate CauseContributory NegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppeal
References
20
Case No. 12-99-00428-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2001

Kenneth Synar, Appellant/Cross-Appellee v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, Appellees/Cross-Appellants

Kenneth Synar, a switchman, sued Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) under the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) and Federal Safety Appliance Act (FSAA) for a repetitive-use injury. A jury found UP negligent and in violation of the FSAA, but also found Synar 30% contributorily negligent. The trial court initially reduced the award based on contributory negligence, but the Court of Appeals reinstated the FSAA finding, negating the reduction. However, the appellate court reversed awards for past and future medical expenses due to insufficient evidence. The modified judgment affirmed a total award of $541,300.00 for lost earning capacity and past lost wages.

FELAFSAARailroad Employee InjuryRepetitive Motion InjuryUlnar Nerve NeuropathySwitching Yard SafetyDefective EquipmentForeseeability of HarmExpert Witness AdmissibilityLost Wages
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas and New Orleans Railroad Company v. Flowers

Glenn Flowers (appellee) sued an unnamed railroad company (appellant) for severe injuries sustained when he was struck by freight cars at a street crossing in Beaumont, Texas. The jury found the railroad company negligent for failing to maintain a proper lookout, provide warning signs, or use a flagman, and for "kicking" a freight car, awarding Flowers $170,802.20 in damages. The appellant appealed, asserting errors related to the sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions on circumstantial evidence, the inadvertent mention of "insurance," and the excessiveness of the damages. Justice McNeill, presiding over the appeal from the district court of Jefferson County, affirmed the trial court's judgment. The court found ample evidence to support the jury's negligence findings and upheld the damage award, concluding that it did not reflect passion or prejudice despite its substantial sum.

Personal InjuryRailroad AccidentNegligenceDamagesContributory NegligenceJury VerdictAppealTexas LawProximate CauseLookout
References
15
Case No. 01-18-00181-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2020

Richard Haynes v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Corporation

Richard Haynes, a carman for Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP), was injured while leaving work and subsequently sued UP under the Federal Employment Labor Act (FELA). A jury found both parties negligent, but the trial court reduced Haynes's damages based on his contributory negligence and liens. On appeal, Haynes contested jury instructions and judicial bias, while UP cross-appealed on FELA applicability and sought an offset for railroad retirement taxes. The appellate court affirmed FELA's applicability, found no trial errors or bias, but modified the judgment to grant UP the requested offset, thus affirming the judgment as modified.

Federal Employment Labor ActRailroad AccidentPersonal InjuryContributory NegligenceJury InstructionJudicial ConductPre-existing ConditionDamages ApportionmentAppellate ProcedureWage Loss Offset
References
39
Case No. No. 16565
Regular Panel Decision

Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad v. Franks

Robert Lee Franks sued Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company under the Federal Employers' Liability Act for injuries sustained from a caboose derailment in 1961. A jury found the railroad negligent, exonerated Franks, and awarded $116,250 in damages. The railroad appealed on multiple grounds, including objections to medical testimony, the refusal to submit certain issues regarding employee status and rule violations, and claims of excessive damages. The appellate court systematically addressed and overruled all of the railroad's points, finding no reversible error in the trial proceedings. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the jury's verdict in favor of Franks.

Federal Employers' Liability ActPersonal InjuryRailroad AccidentCaboose DerailmentNegligencePost-Concussion SyndromeDamages AwardedAppellate ReviewMedical Testimony AdmissibilityExcessive Damages Claim
References
18
Case No. 02-21-00244-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2022

Greg Hanson v. Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company

Greg Hanson, a roadmaster for Fort Worth & Western Railroad Company, appealed a summary judgment that denied his claims under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA). Hanson alleged that he sustained an injury after falling from a hi-rail truck, attributing the incident to exhaustion from excessive work hours. He argued that the Railroad negligently assigned him duties beyond his physical capacity, a condition he claimed the Railroad was aware of through his conversations with his supervisor the day prior to his injury. The Court of Appeals, Second Appellate District of Texas, at Fort Worth, affirmed the trial court's summary judgment. The court found that Hanson's statements to his supervisor regarding long hours were not sufficient to reasonably infer that the Railroad had notice of his dangerous exhaustion. Furthermore, the court declined to impose a duty on the Railroad to monitor an experienced employee's fitness to work, emphasizing the employee's responsibility to report fatigue.

FELASummary JudgmentEmployee ExhaustionNegligenceForeseeabilityDuty of EmployerRailroad IndustryWork InjuryAppellate ReviewTexas Law
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Erie Railroad

The plaintiff, Samuel Cunningham, was discharged from the Erie Railroad Company in 1955. He had sued the Railroad and The United Railroad Workers of America, Inc., C.I.O., Local 1463, alleging discriminatory expulsion from the Union and wrongful discharge by the Railroad. After an initial dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, which was reversed by the Court of Appeals in 1959, the case was retried in 1965. The District Court found that the Union engaged in "hostile discrimination" against Cunningham regarding his dues payments, treating him differently from other members. Consequently, his discharge by the Railroad, based on the Union's request, was deemed unlawful under the Railway Labor Act and the Union Shop Agreement. The court granted judgment in favor of Cunningham against both defendants for $9,583 in damages, with the Union liable to indemnify the Railroad.

Railway Labor ActUnion Shop AgreementHostile DiscriminationWrongful DischargeDues PaymentSeniority RightsIndemnificationLabor LawFederal CourtDamages
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbanti v. MTA Metro North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff Robert Barbanti, formerly an Electronic Specialist at Norfolk Southern Railroad, claims he was fraudulently induced by MTA Metro-North Commuter Railroad (Defendant) to leave his job for a supervisory Signal Inspector position with specific pay. Despite being initially hired as a Signal Inspector, a collective bargaining agreement and a subsequent letter agreement with Local 166 led to him being placed in a lower-paying Electronic Technician role. Barbanti sued for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and negligent/reckless misrepresentation in state court, a case which the Defendant removed to federal court arguing preemption by the Railway Labor Act (RLA). The court ruled that Barbanti's state law claims are not preempted by the RLA because their resolution does not require the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, as the rights and obligations at issue exist independently of any such agreement. Consequently, the court granted Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to state court and denied Defendant's cross-motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Railway Labor ActPreemptionFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractNegligent MisrepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputesFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMotion to Remand
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas & N. O. R. v. Ewing

Mrs. Ewing and her minor daughter, Katherine, recovered $24,500 in damages from a railroad company for the death of E. S. Ewing, who was killed by a passenger train in Navasota on August 23, 1929. The railroad company appealed, arguing there was no affirmative proof of causal connection between its negligence and Ewing's death, and citing errors in testimony admission, jury instructions, and juror misconduct. The appellate court affirmed that an issue of fact regarding negligence and proximate cause was raised, properly denying a peremptory instruction. However, the court found prejudicial errors in the jury instructions concerning the railroad's absolute duty of care and the general submission of contributory negligence issues. Additionally, juror misconduct regarding extraneous matters was found to be prejudicial, leading to the reversal and remand of the judgment for a new trial.

NegligenceWrongful DeathProximate CauseContributory NegligenceJury InstructionsJuror MisconductPeremptory InstructionRemandAppealTexas Law
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 4,834 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