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

Haust v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel J. Haust filed an action against the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act, seeking compensatory damages for injuries from a 2008 motor vehicle accident. Haust's truck collided with a U.S. Postal Service vehicle operated by employee Angel Warner. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Warner's conduct did not meet the "reckless disregard" standard for hazard vehicles, Haust was presumptively negligent in a rear-end collision, and his self-serving testimony was insufficient. The court denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact concerning Warner's precautions, the accident's location, and whether it was a sideswipe or a rear-end collision, which preclude summary judgment.

Motor Vehicle AccidentFederal Torts Claims ActSummary Judgment MotionReckless Disregard StandardNegligence ClaimRear-End CollisionSideswipe AccidentRural Mail CarrierHazard Vehicle ExceptionFactual Disputes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2002

Jaycox v. Hardesty

Plaintiff Newton S. Jaycox rear-ended a stopped garbage truck operated by defendant Robert L. Hardesty and owned by Hardesty & Sons Sanitation, Inc. Plaintiff, along with his wife derivatively, commenced an action seeking damages for sustained injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the collision. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, as plaintiff admitted to looking in his side-view mirror instead of at the road prior to impact. The court also found the defendants' assertions regarding the truck's illuminated lights to be credible.

auto accidentrear-end collisionsummary judgmentnegligenceVehicle and Traffic Lawappellate reviewdriver dutycontributory negligencevisibilityfactual dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2006

Owsian v. Cobo

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action stemming from a rear-end collision in a construction zone. Plaintiff Richard B. Owsian, Jr. was a passenger in a vehicle that stopped to avoid colliding with a third vehicle, operated by Michael J. Fricano, which had stopped abruptly. Their vehicle was then rear-ended by a truck operated by Daniel D. Cobo, an employee of Boehmer Transportation Corp. The Supreme Court's initial ruling denied summary judgment for Fricano and the Simoncelli defendants, while granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants. The appellate court modified this order, reversing the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants, acknowledging the Boehmer defendants' non-negligent explanation for the collision, and affirmed the order as modified.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewConstruction Zone AccidentsVehicle and Traffic LawErie County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Diaz

This case addresses the complex issue of proximate cause in a car accident. Plaintiff, a passenger, was injured when an Access-a-Ride van, double-parked on a busy Manhattan street, was rear-ended by another van whose driver had fallen asleep. Defendants Nunez and Atlantic Paratransit, the Access-a-Ride driver and owner, sought summary judgment, arguing their double-parking merely furnished the condition for the accident. The court, citing various precedents on intervening causation and foreseeability, determined that a reasonable jury could find a rear-end collision a foreseeable consequence of double-parking in such circumstances. Therefore, a triable issue of fact exists regarding proximate causation. The court affirmed the lower court's denial of summary judgment for the Nunez defendants, also noting an unresolved dispute about the plaintiff's seatbelt as further grounds for denial.

Proximate CauseNegligenceCar AccidentDouble ParkingIntervening CauseForeseeabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTraffic RegulationsRear-end Collision
References
13
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04028 [139 AD3d 1018]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2016

Melendez v. McCrowell

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, in a personal injury action arising from a rear-end motor vehicle collision. Plaintiffs Michael Melendez and his wife sued Patrick McCrowell and Marten Transport, Ltd., after Melendez was struck while driving his employer's pickup truck. The Supreme Court had denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, which was based on a collateral estoppel argument citing a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no serious injury. The Supreme Court also granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division found the defendants failed to demonstrate that the issue of serious injury, particularly regarding a traumatic brain injury, was identical to what was decided by the Workers' Compensation Board, thus collateral estoppel did not apply. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of negligence for the rear-end collision, which the defendants failed to rebut with a nonnegligent explanation.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BoardSerious InjuryTraumatic Brain InjuryAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2000

Torres v. WABC Towing Corp.

Plaintiff, a road construction worker, was allegedly injured when his truck was rear-ended by defendants' tow truck. The plaintiff had stopped his vehicle for approximately 30 seconds to allow a helper to remove warning cones from the roadway. Although a rear-end collision typically creates a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant driver provided testimony that attributed the collision to causes other than his negligence, stating he observed the plaintiff's stopped truck on a downhill curve, attempted to change lanes without success, and skidded on wet pavement after braking. The trial court's decision to refuse the plaintiff's request for a jury charge on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (following too closely) was upheld due to a lack of evidence that the accident resulted from tailgating. Additionally, the court did not err in instructing the jury on 49 CFR 392.22 and 393.95 concerning comparative negligence, as these regulations did not introduce new factual allegations or theories of liability despite their omission from the defendants' bill of particulars. The appellate court found no adequate justification to consider the plaintiff's remaining unpreserved complaints and affirmed the judgment.

Rear-end collisionNegligenceJury verdictAffirmed judgmentTraffic LawComparative negligenceWet pavementBrakingSkiddingRoad construction worker
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, Inc. v. Vallone

This case addresses whether the New York City Council adhered to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when enacting Local Law No. 38 (1999), intended for lead paint abatement. The City Council issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant adverse environmental impact. However, the Court of Appeals found this declaration insufficient, specifically noting a lack of reasoned explanation for excluding lead dust from the hazard definition and removing six-year-old children from the law's protections. This non-compliance with SEQRA's procedural mandates led to the nullification of Local Law 38, thereby reinstating Local Law 1 (1982). The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case, encouraging the involved parties to collaborate in safeguarding New York City's children from lead exposure.

Lead paint abatementEnvironmental lawSEQRA complianceLocal Law 38Local Law 1Negative declarationPublic health concernsChildhood lead poisoningAdministrative proceduresNew York City Council
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

East End Eruv Ass'n v. Village of Westhampton Beach

The court denied a preliminary injunction sought by the East End Eruv Association and individual plaintiffs against three municipalities (Westhampton Beach, Quogue, Southampton) regarding the establishment of an eruv using utility poles. Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Free Exercise Clause, RLUIPA, and tortious interference with contract. The motion was denied against Southampton Defendants because the action was not ripe and plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits, failing to prove selective enforcement, a property interest, or contract breach. The motions against Quogue and Westhampton Beach Defendants were denied without prejudice due to the interdependence of the requested relief across all municipalities.

Religious FreedomEruvLand Use RegulationZoning OrdinanceFree Exercise ClauseRLUIPATortious InterferencePreliminary InjunctionRipeness DoctrineSelective Enforcement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martegani v. Cirrus Design Corp.

Micaela Martegani, individually and as natural guardian of her minor child, commenced a wrongful death action against Cirrus Design Corporation and East End Aviation following her husband's death in a 2006 plane crash. The parties reached a settlement, and Martegani sought court approval, including attorney's fees and the establishment of a trust for the minor child's share. The court approved the settlement in principle, but significantly reduced the requested attorney's fees by 30% due to the absence of contemporaneous time records. Additionally, the court denied the recovery of "case expenses" and a $5,000 reserve due to insufficient documentation. The final order authorized Martegani to settle the claims, with specific allocations for attorney's fees, the minor child's trust, and Martegani's personal compensation.

Infant SettlementWrongful DeathPlane CrashAttorney FeesContingency FeeCourt ApprovalMinor Child TrustSettlement AllocationCase ExpensesDocumentation Requirements
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1199seiu Nat'l Benefit Fund v. Allergan, Inc. (In re Restasis (Cyclosporine Ophthalmic Emulsion) Antitrust Litig.)

This multi-district litigation addresses defendant Allergan's alleged anticompetitive efforts to delay FDA approval of generic versions of its dry-eye medication, Restasis®. Plaintiffs, comprising Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and End-Payor Plaintiffs, contend Allergan engaged in various unlawful strategies, including filing sham citizen petitions, defrauding the USPTO to secure "second-wave" patents, wrongfully listing these patents, initiating sham patent infringement lawsuits, and transferring patents to a Native American tribe to invoke sovereign immunity. Allergan moved to dismiss the consolidated complaints, asserting that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege that its actions caused any delay in generic market entry. The court, however, denied Allergan's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs had adequately pleaded that Allergan's aggressive and persistent tactics could have effectively delayed competition.

AntitrustPharmaceutical IndustryGeneric DrugsFDA ApprovalPatent InfringementCitizen PetitionsHatch-Waxman ActMonopolyRestasisDry Eye Medication
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 262 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