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. NO. 01-05-00494-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2007

Yahya Hassan, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Company and Kemal Mohammed, Individually and D/B/A Safe Cab Co., A/K/A Safe Cab Company v. Greater Houston Transportation Company D/B/A Yellow Cab

This is a dissenting opinion in a trade dress infringement case brought by Greater Houston Transportation Company d/b/a Yellow Cab against Yahya Hassan and Kemal Mohammed d/b/a Safe Cab Co. under the Lanham Act and Texas common law. The dissent argues that the majority incorrectly concluded that the appellant failed to preserve its challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence and erroneously rejected a legally correct jury charge on 'secondary meaning.' Justice Keyes, the author of the dissent, contends that the challenged jury instruction was not erroneous and, even if it were, the error would not have caused an improper judgment due to sufficient evidence of trade dress infringement. The dissent would affirm the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence of secondary meaning and likelihood of confusion.

Trade Dress InfringementLanham ActSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionJury InstructionsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceTexas LawUnfair CompetitionTaxi Services
References
30
Case No. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pato v. Sweeney Steel Service Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Buffalo Labor Temp, suffered the loss of his right arm due to an overhead crane accident in a building leased by the defendant. He sued the defendant for negligent supervision, failure to warn, and failure to provide a safe workplace, arguing he was not their employee. The defendant counter-argued that the plaintiff was their special employee, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. The jury found the plaintiff was not a special employee, the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, and this breach proximately caused the injuries. The jury also found the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment and order, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

NegligenceSpecial EmploymentSafe Workplace DutyWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyJury VerdictAppellate AffirmanceWorkplace AccidentCrane InjuryErie County CourtLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argento v. Airborne Freight Corp.

Salvatore Argento sued Airborne Freight Corporation and Local 851 for negligence, alleging that his spouse became addicted to drugs during her employment at Airborne. Local 851 moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, arguing it owed no duty to Argento to ensure a safe workplace for his spouse. The court found that Argento's claim, based on a common law negligence theory, was either preempted by federal labor law due to its reliance on a collective bargaining agreement or failed under common law because unions generally do not owe a duty to provide a safe workplace, and even if they did, it wouldn't extend to a non-employee spouse. Consequently, Local 851's motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint against it was dismissed with prejudice.

NegligenceLabor LawFederal PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of CareMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityLoss of ConsortiumEmployment LawDismissed with Prejudice
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1986

Goslin v. La Mora

Plaintiff's decedent was fatally injured while setting up defendant Nancy L. La Mora's mobile home, which slipped from its jacks and crushed him. The wrongful death action was based on theories of the mobile home being a dangerous instrumentality, the site constituting a dangerous condition imposing a higher duty of care on the landowner, and the landowner's failure to provide a safe workplace. The court found that an unelevated mobile home is not a dangerous instrumentality, and while on jacks it could be, the decedent's voluntary work placed it in that position. The court also determined that the landowner was not expected to recognize the falling trailer as a hidden danger, and the difficulties of balancing it were obvious to the decedent, who had prior experience. Finally, the contention regarding failure to provide a safe workplace was rejected because the decedent was a volunteer, not an employee protected by Labor Law.

Wrongful DeathMobile Home AccidentLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionDangerous InstrumentalityVolunteer WorkerPremises LiabilityNegligenceSafe Workplace DutyDuty of Care
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bombard v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company and Mid-Hudson Auto Wreckers, Inc., thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, Bombard, had previously alleged a breach of common-law duty to provide a safe workplace and sought to amend the complaint to include a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was no new evidence to support Central Hudson's supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, a prerequisite for the safe workplace claim. Similarly, Mid-Hudson was found not to have exercised sufficient supervision, and the danger posed by power lines was deemed readily observable, negating a duty to protect from obvious hazards. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to amend the complaint, ruling that the work of removing cars from a junkyard did not fall within the scope of 'construction, excavation or demolition' as required by Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkplace safetySupervision and controlObvious dangerAppellate reviewCommon-law dutyNegligenceStatutory interpretationJunkyard accident
References
10
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06773
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2025

Sullivan v. Flynn

Loren S. Sullivan, an appellant, was injured after tripping on a wooden construction brace while taking measurements for custom kitchen cabinetry in a new home, leading him to sue the contractors, Gerald R. Flynn et al., for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they had no duty to warn and that the readily observable brace was not a substantial factor in the injury. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, asserting that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the worksite was maintained in a reasonably safe condition, thereby leaving a question of fact for trial. The court emphasized that the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition only negates the duty to warn, not the broader duty to maintain a safe workplace. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the defendants' worksite was indeed safe.

Safe Place to WorkConstruction Site SafetyTripping HazardLabor Law § 200Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDuty to WarnDangerous ConditionQuestion of FactAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Derion v. Buffalo Crushed Stone, Inc.

The plaintiff, a truck driver for Anastasi Trucking, Inc., a subcontractor on a construction project, sustained injuries when his dump truck hit a pothole on a roadway owned and maintained by the defendant. This occurred while he was en route to the defendant's quarry. The central legal question involved the applicability of Labor Law § 200, which codifies an owner's common-law duty to provide a safe workplace. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the plaintiff's complaint did not fall within Labor Law § 200 because the "safe place of work" envisioned by the statute does not extend to the roadway leading to the defendant's business. The order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, was unanimously affirmed.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkRoadwayPotholeConstruction ProjectSubcontractorCommon-law DutySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionErie County
References
3
Case No. 10-10-00171-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 14, 2012

Mary Frances Haferkamp v. SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company, LP, Mariner Healthcare Management Company, SSC Pasadena Operating Company, LP, LLC, Savanseniorcare, LLC, Savaseniorcare Administrative Services, LLC

Mary Frances Haferkamp appealed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of SSC Waco Greenview Operating Company LP and other entities. Haferkamp sued for negligence due to an alleged workplace injury, claiming appellees were nonsubscribers to worker’s compensation insurance and failed to provide a safe workplace and adequate tools. Appellees moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of proximate cause and no breach of duty. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that Haferkamp's deposition testimony conclusively established that the appellees' alleged negligence was not the proximate cause of her injury, as the patient's sudden act was unpreventable and she would not have used a gait belt even if available.

Negligence ClaimWorkplace InjurySummary Judgment AppealProximate CauseTexas Labor CodeNonsubscriber EmployerEmployer Duty of CareAppellate ReviewDeposition TestimonyGait Belt
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 1991

Edwards v. Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates

The plaintiff, an employee of Hayim & Company, a carpet warehouse, suffered personal injuries when he fell approximately six feet while replacing a plywood shelf at his workplace. He had initially received Workers' Compensation benefits for his injuries. Subsequently, the plaintiff commenced an action against the premises owner, Twenty-Four Twenty-Six Main Street Associates, alleging a failure to provide a safe workplace under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant owner's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint against them. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court concluding that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context, and Labor Law § 200 liability was inapplicable as the defendant owner did not maintain direction or control over the plaintiff's duties.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySafe WorkplaceRoutine MaintenanceAppellate ReviewNegligenceNew York Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 1,093 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