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
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Armstrong Rubber Co. v. Urquidez

This appeal addresses whether strict liability in tort applies when a product, a "non-interest spare" tire, has not entered the stream of commerce but was provided by the manufacturer, Armstrong Rubber Company, to Automotive Proving Grounds, Inc. for mutual benefit testing of other tires. Clemente Urquidez, a test driver, was killed due to a blowout of this tire. The trial court and Court of Civil Appeals found the tire defective and applied strict liability. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed, holding that the strict liability doctrine, as adopted in Texas, requires the product to be placed in the stream of commerce. Since the defective tire was manufactured and used solely within an industrial testing process and never released to the consuming public, the doctrine of strict liability was deemed inapplicable.

Strict LiabilityProduct LiabilityStream of CommerceBailment for Mutual BenefitNon-Interest Spare TireIndustrial TestingDefective ProductWrongful DeathReversalTexas Supreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Plaintiff Mario Miguel Jaramillo sustained serious injuries while operating an industrial Flexo Folder Gluer machine. The machine was purchased used by his employer, Universal Glenwood Packaging Products Corporation, from Weyerhaeuser Company. Jaramillo filed a strict products liability claim against Weyerhaeuser, alleging the machine was defective due to the lack of safety devices. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals, was whether Weyerhaeuser, as a seller of used equipment, qualified as a 'regular seller' subject to strict liability under New York law. Reviewing prior precedents like Sukljian v Ross & Son Co. and Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, the court analyzed the policy considerations behind imposing strict liability. The court concluded that Weyerhaeuser's incidental sales of used, third-hand equipment as surplus did not meet the criteria for a 'regular seller' and would not serve the public policy goals of strict products liability, answering the certified question in the negative.

Strict Products LiabilityCasual Seller DoctrineOrdinary Seller DoctrineUsed Goods LiabilityCertified QuestionNew York LawIndustrial Machinery AccidentWorkplace InjuryCorporate Surplus SalesProduct Defect
References
10
Case No. CV-22-2011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Sukhwinder Singh

Claimant Sukhwinder Singh was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found NLF's cancellation effective, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling NLF failed to prove proper cancellation and was the liable carrier. NLF appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the requirement for strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding policy cancellation notice and deferring to the Board's credibility determinations.

Policy CancellationInsurance LiabilityNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00832 [224 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Singh v. Atlas NY Constr. Corp.

Sukhwinder Singh, a claimant, was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation, a subcontractor on a construction project. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability for the claim, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in favor of NLF, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proper policy cancellation by NLF. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) for policy cancellation and that the Board's credibility determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed. The court found NLF failed to meet its burden of establishing proper cancellation.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationInsurance Coverage DisputeNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceNonpayment of PremiumsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1994

Kern v. Frye Copysystems, Inc.

The case concerns William and Dorothy Kern's personal injury claims against Frye Copysystems, Inc. and Wheelabrator-Frye Co., stemming from an accident involving a rotary coating machine. The Kerns alleged negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability due to a defective design. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing immunity under Worker's Compensation Law, that the warranty claim was time-barred, and that strict liability was inapplicable. The court granted summary judgment on the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims, but denied it for the negligence claim against Copysystems, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding machine modifications and successor liability under the "Billy" exception to Worker's Compensation exclusivity.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentSuccessor LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawDefective DesignMachine AccidentStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Liability Assur. Corp. v. Williams

J. H. Williams, an employee, sustained an injury in September 1924 while working for American Construction Company, an insured employer under the Texas Employers’ Liability Act. He initially received weekly compensation payments from Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, Limited. After payments ceased, Williams sought a lump sum award from the Industrial Accident Board, which was granted in June 1925. The assurance corporation subsequently sued in the district court of Galveston county to set aside this award. Williams cross-petitioned for total and permanent disability and a lump sum payment due to manifest hardship. A jury found Williams totally and permanently disabled, and the court sided with Williams, awarding him and his attorneys, Morris, Sewell & Morris, a lump sum of $6,032.15. The assurance corporation appealed this judgment, contesting the finding of total permanent disability and the lump sum award. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and noting the appellant's failure to follow legal procedures regarding a surgical operation demand.

Workers' CompensationTotal Permanent DisabilityLump Sum SettlementIndustrial Accident BoardAppellate ReviewMedical Expert TestimonyJury FindingsEmployer LiabilitySurgical InterventionManifest Hardship
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 [44 NY3d 57]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Flanders v. Goodfellow

Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, sued Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow after their dog bit her during a package delivery, asserting strict liability and negligence claims. Lower courts dismissed both claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the strict liability cause of action due to a triable issue of fact regarding the owners' constructive knowledge of their dog's aggressive behavior. Significantly, the Court explicitly overruled Bard v Jahnke, establishing that common-law negligence is a valid theory of liability for harm caused by domestic animals in New York. This decision creates a two-pronged approach to such cases, allowing plaintiffs to pursue either strict liability for known vicious propensities or ordinary negligence for a failure to exercise due care under the circumstances. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this new legal framework.

Animal AttackDog BiteStrict LiabilityNegligence Cause of ActionVicious PropensityOverruling PrecedentStare DecisisSummary JudgmentConstructive KnowledgeDomestic Animals
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adkisson v. Jacobs Eng'g Grp., Inc.

Plaintiffs, cleanup workers at the Kingston Fossil Fuel Plant, sued a defendant for personal injuries caused by fly ash exposure, alleging negligence, fraud, and strict liability. The court considered the defendant's motions for summary judgment on general causation and judgment on the pleadings for strict liability claims. The motion for summary judgment on general causation was denied, as plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence that fly ash constituents could cause the alleged diseases. However, the court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding strict liability, ruling that fly ash cleanup is not an inherently ultrahazardous activity under Tennessee law. The case will now proceed to trial on phase one.

fly ashtoxic tortgeneral causationspecific causationsummary judgmentstrict liabilityabnormally dangerous activityTennessee lawepidemiologyDaubert challenge
References
57
Showing 1-10 of 5,429 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