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. M21-88
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2007

In Re Mtbe Products Liab. Lit.

Plaintiffs, residents and business owners in Fort Montgomery, New York, brought actions against gas station owners and suppliers, including Sunoco, Inc. and ExxonMobil, alleging MTBE contamination of their private wells. They claimed various harms including lowered property values and fear of future health issues due to exposure. Plaintiffs asserted claims for strict product liability, negligence (including negligent infliction of emotional distress), trespass, nuisance, intentional interference with water resources, unfair competition, outrageous conduct, and New York State Navigation Law violations. Defendants moved for summary judgment on the emotional distress claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion, allowing claims for negligent infliction of emotional distress to proceed based on evidence of subcellular damage (MTBE-DNA adducts) as a rational basis for fear, but dismissed claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress due to insufficient evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct or intent to cause severe emotional distress. The court also ordered plaintiffs to submit to mental exams regarding their negligent infliction of emotional distress claims.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionToxic tortEmotional distressNegligent infliction of emotional distressProduct liabilitySummary judgmentEnvironmental lawFear of cancerSubcellular damage
References
132
Case No. 1:00-1898, MDL 1358(SAS), M 21-88, 04-Civ-2389, 04-Civ-5424, 04-Civ-3417, 04-Civ-4968
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products

This consolidated multi-district litigation (MDL) concerns groundwater contamination by the gasoline additive MTBE and its degradation product, TBA. Defendants moved for summary judgment in several New York actions and one Orange County Water District action, arguing plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because the contamination levels were below the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), thus not constituting an "injury-in-fact." The court analyzed whether the MCL defines the scope of a legally protected interest, distinguishing prior cases involving private well owners or those where remediation expenses were not directly linked to contamination. The court concluded that MCLs are regulatory standards for water providers, not a strict definition of what constitutes an injury for tort liability. It determined that contamination below the MCL can still cause a cognizable injury due to monitoring, testing, treatment costs, and issues like taste and odor. The court denied defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that factual disputes remain regarding the extent of plaintiffs' alleged injuries from low-level MTBE contamination, making a summary judgment ruling premature.

Groundwater ContaminationMTBE LitigationTertiary Butyl Alcohol (TBA)Product LiabilityMulti-District Litigation (MDL)Article III StandingSummary JudgmentMaximum Contaminant Level (MCL)Environmental LawWater Quality Standards
References
60
Case No. E2013-02708-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

Danny Long v. Quad Power Products, LLC

Danny Long suffered a severe arm injury, leading to amputation, when a ball valve mechanism broke while he was pressure testing. He and his wife, Geraldine Long, filed a product liability complaint against four companies, alleging negligence and failure to warn. Mr. Long's employer, Alstom Power, Inc., joined as an intervening plaintiff. After Mr. Long's death, Ms. Long continued the suit. The case eventually narrowed to a strict liability claim against Southern Fluidpower, Inc., based on failure to warn about pressure capacity and corrosion in water systems. The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern Fluidpower, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Southern's alleged failure to warn caused Mr. Long's injury, attributing the cause in fact to Alstom's negligence in assembling and using a known faulty valve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Alstom's actions were an intervening cause.

Product LiabilityWorkplace InjuryAmputationFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCausation in FactIntervening CauseTennessee Products Liability ActBall Valve Failure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kellar v. Inductotherm Corp.

Plaintiffs James D. Kellar, a foundry worker, and his wife, filed a products liability action against the manufacturer of a channel furnace. Kellar was injured when he was struck by scrap metal, became dazed, and fell into an unguarded pit surrounding the furnace at Vestal Manufacturing Company, his employer. The furnace was sold to Vestal in 1971, and Vestal installed it with platforms, creating the pit. Vestal also attached a rear deck from the defendant, which partially covered the pit when the furnace was horizontal. Plaintiffs argued the furnace was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of a guard for the pit and a failure to warn. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the defect was in Vestal's installation, not their product, and that the danger was obvious. The court, applying Tennessee law, granted the defendant's motion, ruling that liability under Section 402A only applies if the manufacturer's product itself is defective and causes harm, and that the open pit was created by Vestal, not the defendant. Furthermore, the court found the danger of the unguarded pit was obvious to the plaintiff.

products liabilityfoundry accidentunguarded pitmanufacturing defectfailure to warnobvious dangerjudgment notwithstanding the verdictcomponent part liabilityemployer liabilityworker injury
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

Erickson v. Harvey Hubbell, Inc.

Plaintiff moved to strike paragraph 11 of Defendant's amended answers, which asserted employer contributory negligence as a defense in a strict product liability case. Plaintiff argued that Texas law, specifically Varela v. American Petrofina Company of Texas, Inc., forbids considering employer negligence when the employer subscribed to worker's compensation. The court, however, noted that Varela addressed negligence actions, not strict product liability. Citing Duncan v. Cessna Aircraft Company, which adopted a comparative causation standard for strict product liability, the court denied Plaintiff's motion. The decision allows the jury to consider and apportion cause among all actors, including the employer, treating the employer as a 'settled tort-feasor' for apportionment purposes.

Strict Product LiabilityComparative CausationEmployer NegligenceWorker's CompensationTexas LawContributory NegligenceApportionment of LiabilityJoint Tort-feasorsProduct Liability DefenseLegal Precedent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Collins v. Promark Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Terry Collins, an employee of the government’s National Park Service, was injured on Ellis Island while using a stump grinder manufactured by defendant Promark Products, Inc. Plaintiff, who had been receiving workers’ compensation benefits, initiated a products liability action against Promark. Promark subsequently impleaded the United States government, alleging negligence in machine maintenance and inadequate instruction. The government moved for summary judgment, contending that New Jersey law should apply under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would bar the third-party action as workers' compensation would be the sole liability. The court examined an 1833 agreement between New Jersey and New York, consented to by Congress, establishing jurisdictional and territorial limits. The court concluded that New York law applies to the areas on Ellis Island where the tort occurred, granting New York exclusive jurisdiction despite New Jersey's property rights to the underwater land. Consequently, the government’s motion for summary judgment was denied.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityFederal Tort Claims ActWorkers' CompensationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentInterstate CompactEllis IslandGovernment Liability
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 6,232 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