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

Crompton Greaves, Ltd. v. Shippers Stevedoring Co.

This opinion addresses multiple motions in a dispute arising from the damage of a power transformer shipped from India to the United States. Plaintiff Crompton Greaves sued Shippers Stevedoring for negligence and breach of contract, alleging damage occurred while the transformer was in Shippers Stevedoring's custody in the Port of Houston. Shippers Stevedoring, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Union Pacific Railroad for indemnification and contribution. The court denied most summary judgment motions from Crompton Greaves and Shippers Stevedoring, including those related to COGSA limitations and liability. Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment was granted to limit its liability to $25,000.00, but denied on standing and limitations grounds against Shippers Stevedoring.

Maritime LawShipping DamageCOGSACarmack AmendmentSummary JudgmentNegligenceBreach of ContractBailmentThird-Party ComplaintStatute of Limitations
References
87
Case No. 14-08-00438-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2008

in Re Shippers Stevedoring Company

Shippers Stevedoring Company filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel Judge Rory R. Olsen of Harris County Probate Court Number Three to vacate an order denying Shippers' plea to the jurisdiction. The underlying case involved wrongful death and survival claims brought by the heirs and estate of Chavon Lewis, who was fatally injured by a forklift while working for Shippers. Shippers argued the probate court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction due to the exclusivity of the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) and the Department of Labor's exclusive original jurisdiction. The court denied the mandamus, ruling that federal preemption is an affirmative defense and does not deprive the state trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction over state-law claims, nor will it recharacterize state-law claims as federal claims.

MandamusSubject-matter JurisdictionFederal PreemptionWorkers' CompensationLHWCATexas Workers' Compensation ActWrongful DeathSurvival ClaimsProbate CourtAppellate Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc.

Carroll Wallace, a longshoreman, sought to remand his retaliatory discharge lawsuit against Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring Co., Inc. to state court. Wallace had previously sustained a back injury and received benefits under both the Texas Workmen's Compensation Act (TWCA) and the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). After being refused re-employment by Ryan-Walsh, he filed a claim in Texas state court alleging retaliatory discharge under TWCA article 8307c. Ryan-Walsh removed the case to federal court, asserting diversity and federal question jurisdiction, arguing that Wallace’s state law claim was preempted by the LHWCA or federal labor laws. The federal court, however, determined that Wallace's injury fell within the "twilight zone" of concurrent federal and state jurisdiction, preventing LHWCA preemption. Additionally, the court found no preemption by federal labor laws. Therefore, the court granted Wallace's motion, remanding the case to the 60th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' CompensationLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActTexas Workmen's Compensation ActFederal Question JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionPreemption DoctrineRemand OrderCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Law
References
68
Case No. 59-354
Regular Panel Decision

Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Co. v. Sheppeard

This case involves a proceeding in admiralty initiated by the Houston Ship Channel Stevedoring Company (libelant) to challenge a compensation award made by Deputy Commissioner G. Sheppeard. The award was in favor of William Bauer, an employee injured while working for the libelant, and covered compensation and medical expenses. The libelant argued it was a subcontractor and therefore not liable under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. However, District Judge Kennerly affirmed the deputy commissioner's award, ruling that the libelant was liable regardless of its contractor status. The court found the award to be in accordance with the law and saw no reason to remand the case for further proceedings.

Admiralty LawWorkers' Compensation ActEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityAdministrative Award ReviewFederal JurisdictionMaritime InjuryInsurance InsolvencyDeputy Commissioner DecisionLongshoremen's Compensation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olin Mathieson Chemical Corp. v. United Stevedoring Division

This memorandum opinion addresses an indemnity action brought by shipowner Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation and Nilo Barge Lines, Inc., against stevedore United Stevedoring Division, States Marine Lines, Inc. The plaintiffs sought indemnity after settling a lawsuit filed by longshoreman Bedford Pitts, who was injured in September 1964 while working on an Olin barge due to an oily engine room deck, a condition the court deemed rendered the vessel unseaworthy. While the court found Pitts' decision to proceed with work under hazardous conditions constituted a breach of the stevedore's warranty of workmanlike service, it ultimately concluded that the shipowners were better positioned to prevent the accident. Plaintiffs were responsible for maintaining the engine room and failed to clean it despite knowing the potential for such conditions, also making it impossible for the stevedore to clean it at the time of the incident. Consequently, the court denied indemnity to Olin Mathieson and Nilo Barge Lines, holding them responsible due to their conduct preventing the stevedore's proper performance.

Indemnity ClaimBreach of Warranty of Workmanlike ServiceMaritime LawShipowner LiabilityStevedore OperationsUnseaworthinessLongshoreman InjuryContractual DutiesComparative FaultFifth Circuit Precedent
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Globe Stevedoring Co. v. Peters

Plaintiff Globe Stevedoring Company, Inc. sought a temporary injunction to prevent the enforcement of a workers' compensation award. The award, issued by a deputy commissioner, held Globe Stevedoring and Lumbermen's Reciprocal Insurance Association liable to J. E. Peters, an employee injured while loading the steamship Abereos. Globe Stevedoring argued it was not liable as a subcontractor under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, citing an agreement where the vessel owner was to provide insurance coverage. Additionally, the plaintiff claimed a denial of due process due to lack of notice and opportunity to present defenses before the deputy commissioner. The court denied the application for a temporary injunction, finding that the plaintiff's interpretation of the Act regarding subcontractor liability was incorrect. Furthermore, the court determined that the plaintiff's allegations of insufficient notice and lack of due process were not specific or direct enough to overcome statutory presumptions and the findings of the deputy commissioner, especially given the plaintiff's failure to pursue available remedies under the Compensation Act.

Workers' CompensationLongshoremenHarbor WorkersSubcontractor LiabilityDue ProcessNoticeFederal LawGalveston, TexasInjunctionInsurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. SKIBS A/S DANMOTOR

This suit involves an injury to longshoreman James P. Grace aboard the vessel ALEX in Galveston, Texas, caused by falling rigging. Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc., Grace's employer, and Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, the compensation carrier, sought to recover compensation payments, medical expenses, and attorney's fees from the vessel owner, Skibs A/S Dan-motor. The court found the vessel unseaworthy due to improperly secured rigging, leading to Grace's injury. It further determined that the stevedore did not breach its warranty of workmanlike performance, as the defect was not discoverable through cursory inspection. Consequently, the ship's counterclaim for indemnity against the stevedore was denied, and the plaintiffs were entitled to recover their damages from the ship.

Admiralty LawLongshoremen's InjuryUnseaworthinessStevedore LiabilityIndemnity ClaimWorkmanlike PerformanceComparative NegligenceContribution Between TortfeasorsRes Ipsa LoquiturMaritime Personal Injury
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zapico v. Bucyrus-Erie Co.

This case addresses post-trial motions concerning the liability of Atlantic Container Lines (ACL), a stevedore, to Bucyrus-Erie Co., a truck-crane manufacturer and third-party plaintiff. The central issue is whether ACL enjoys immunity from contribution or indemnity claims under 33 U.S.C. § 905, following a jury finding that both Bucyrus-Erie's negligent manufacturing and ACL's incompetent employee (Antonio Fuet) equally contributed to the injury of Adolfo Millan and death of Joseph Zapico, ACL's employees. ACL argued it was immune as a compensation-paying stevedore and lacked an indemnity agreement. The court found that Bucyrus-Erie's claim was not 'on account of' the employee injury, but rather for partial indemnification based on ACL's implied warranty of workmanlike performance or a quasi-contractual theory. The court concluded that extending third-party benefits or apportioning damages based on fault would not violate statutory immunity and would be equitable, especially given manufacturers' lack of control over stevedoring functions and increasing strict liability. Therefore, ACL's motion for judgment in its favor was denied, Bucyrus-Erie Co.'s motion to amend its pleadings was granted, and Celia Zapico's motion to strike the jury's finding of contributory negligence was denied.

Stevedore LiabilityMaritime IndemnityLongshoremen's ActThird-Party ClaimsProduct Manufacturer NegligenceEmployee IncompetenceContribution LawWarranty of Workmanlike PerformanceFederal Civil ProcedurePost-Trial Litigation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pereda v. Grace Line, Inc.

This case involves a stevedore who brought an action for personal injuries against Grace Line, Inc., the owner of a ship where the accident occurred. The stevedore, while carrying bananas, fell from a ramp improvised from loose planks. The claim was based on negligence, not unseaworthiness. The court found no evidence that the manner in which the ramp was formed, of loose planks, was contrary to good or accepted practice. Consequently, the complaint against defendant Grace Line, Inc. was dismissed, modifying a previous judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the third-party defendants against third-party plaintiff Grace Line, Inc.

Personal InjuryStevedoreNegligenceShip AccidentWorkplace SafetyRamp AccidentLoose PlanksComplaint DismissalAppellate DecisionThird-Party Claim
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watson v. Gulf Stevedore Corp.

The petitioner, a longshoreman, was injured in February 1957 while working for the respondent stevedoring company in the Port of Houston. The petitioner sued his employer directly, arguing he was a third-party beneficiary of an implied warranty of workmanlike performance, which, if breached, rendered the vessel unseaworthy. This suit was brought despite the exclusive liability provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The petitioner cited *Reed v. The Yaka* and the indemnity principle from *Ryan Stevedoring Co.* to support an extension of these doctrines. However, the court found no legal precedent to extend these propositions to allow a direct suit against the employer in this context, especially since the respondent was not the vessel owner pro hac vice and there was no prior adjudication of the vessel's liability. Consequently, the respondent’s Motion to Dismiss was granted, and the libel was dismissed with prejudice.

LongshoremanHarbor WorkerWorkers' Compensation ActThird-Party BeneficiaryImplied WarrantyVessel UnseaworthinessStevedoring CompanyMotion to DismissExclusive RemedyIndemnity
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 62 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