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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
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

Citizen v. M/V TRITON

This Memorandum Opinion addresses an injury sustained by a plaintiff longshoreman in the Port of Beaumont on July 26, 1973, while working for Gulf Stevedore Corporation, an independent contractor for the defendant vessel owner, M/V TRITON. The longshoreman was injured after stepping into an open space between bags of flour in the No. 4 hold, a condition created by improper stowage by the Stevedore during a previous loading in Galveston. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which eliminated unseaworthiness as a basis for vessel liability and shifted the primary duty for a safe workplace to the stevedore. The Court found that the Stevedore was in sole charge of all loading operations, and the vessel owner had no duty regarding the stowage method, thus precluding a finding of vessel negligence. Consequently, the Court entered judgment for the defendant vessel owner, emphasizing that the burden of proving negligence was not met.

Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act1972 AmendmentsVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyUnseaworthiness DoctrineSafe Place to WorkCargo StowageMaritime LawThird Party LiabilityPort of Beaumont
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cariffe v. P/R Hoegh Cairn & M/V Cairn

Plaintiff Frank Cariffe, a longshoreman, was injured by inhaling hazardous Metanil Yellow while unloading drums from a container at Brooklyn Pier #9. The defendant, M/V Hoegh Cairn (CAIRN), was aware of the hazardous nature of the cargo but allegedly failed to label the container or provide a dangerous cargo manifest to Cariffe's employer, Universal Maritime Service Stevedoring Company (UMS). CAIRN moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn because Metanil Yellow was not on the official Hazardous Materials Table at the time of the incident, only on an optional list. The court denied CAIRN's motion, asserting that a shipowner retains a common law duty to warn stevedores of known hidden dangers, even if not specifically mandated by federal regulations for all substances. The court determined that whether CAIRN breached its duty of reasonable care and whether UMS had adequate knowledge or could have discovered the hazard by reasonable care are questions for the trier of fact.

Longshoreman InjuryHazardous CargoDuty to WarnShipowner LiabilitySummary Judgment DenialMetanil YellowMaritime LawFederal RegulationsStevedore ResponsibilityHidden Danger
References
10
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

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
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
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 3,165 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