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. M2002-01620-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2003

Susan Taylor v. Square D Company

Disobeying the direct orders of his supervisor, an electrician began work on a substation without following the proper safety procedures. He was electrocuted and perished almost instantly. His widow, Susan Taylor, brought suit against the manufacturer of the substation, Square D Company, alleging negligence and defective design. The trial court granted summary judgment for the manufacturer, finding the electrician's negligence greater. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the electrician's fault was clearly more than fifty percent, thus barring recovery, despite the alleged defective design arguments made by the plaintiff's expert.

ElectrocutionSubstation AccidentNegligenceDefective DesignProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentComparative FaultElectrical SafetyLockout TagoutWorkplace Accident
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierce v. United States

The plaintiff, an electrical lineman, sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for severe injuries sustained while working at the government-owned Volunteer Ordnance Works (VOW) in Tennessee. The accident occurred due to a defective electrical substation and live high-voltage lines, despite assurances that the power was off. The court found the government negligent in both maintaining the hazardous substation and failing to ensure power was cut off, invoking the doctrine of nondelegable duty for inherently dangerous activities. The court rejected the government's defenses including contributory negligence, assumption of risk, and the discretionary function exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act. Judgment was awarded to the plaintiff for $53,984.81.

Federal Tort Claims ActElectrical AccidentLineman InjuryNegligenceDiscretionary FunctionIndependent ContractorContributory NegligenceAssumption of RiskWorkers' CompensationNondelegable Duty
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hutchinson v. Sheridan Hill House Corp.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be denied. The dissent contends that the sidewalk defect, a quarter-inch protruding metal object, is not trivial and presents an actionable tripping hazard, citing precedents that reject a minimal dimension test for defects. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that the defendant's claim of lack of notice is insufficient to establish an absence of constructive notice, especially given that the defect was present since a new sidewalk installation over two years prior to the accident. Justice Saxe distinguishes the current case from prior trivial defect cases, emphasizing that the defect here constitutes a potential trap or snare, thus raising a question of fact for a jury.

Sidewalk DefectTrivial Defect DoctrineSummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeTripping HazardPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryDuty to Maintain PropertyIndependent Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bic Pen Corp. v. Carter

This memorandum opinion on remand addresses a product liability lawsuit filed by Janace M. Carter against BIC Pen Corp. after her daughter, Brittany, suffered severe burns from a BIC cigarette lighter. Initially, a jury found both design and manufacturing defects, leading to an award of actual and exemplary damages. However, the Texas Supreme Court ruled that the design defect claim was preempted by federal law and remanded the case for consideration of the manufacturing defect claim. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding actual damages, concluding that the manufacturing defect claim was not preempted, the spoliation instruction was properly given, and there was sufficient evidence to support the manufacturing defect and causation findings. Conversely, the court reversed and rendered the portion of the judgment awarding exemplary damages, finding insufficient evidence to establish malice on the part of BIC Pen Corp. in the manufacturing process.

Product LiabilityManufacturing DefectFederal PreemptionSpoliation InstructionExemplary DamagesActual DamagesCigarette LighterChild SafetyConsumer Product Safety Act (CPSA)Appellate Review
References
32
Case No. 02-08-00210-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2011

Lourdes Maria Vargas De Damian, Individually, as Next Friend to Nicole Denisse Damian Vargas, and as Representative of the Estate of Demetrio Damian Chen v. Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc.

Appellants, including family members of deceased pilots and passengers, filed a lawsuit against Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. following a Bell 407 helicopter crash on January 27, 2000, in Panama. The lawsuit alleged strict products liability and negligence, specifically citing design defects in the helicopter's windshield and restraint system. The crash was caused by a black vulture penetrating the windshield, which incapacitated Captain Damian and resulted in fatalities. A jury found a design defect, negligence by both Bell and Captain Damian (50% responsibility each), and awarded damages. The trial court's final judgment was issued on February 28, 2008. On appeal, the court affirmed the portion of the trial court's judgment related to the claims on behalf of Gloria Gasperi's estate. However, it reversed and rendered judgment that other appellants take nothing. The appellate court found no federal preemption, ruled that the Panamanian statute of limitations did not bar the claims, and upheld the sufficiency of evidence for the seatbelt design defect and Captain Damian's comparative negligence. Conversely, the court found insufficient evidence for design defects related to the windshield and door mounts. Claims of juror misconduct were rejected due to legal prohibitions on juror testimony.

Helicopter crashProducts liabilityDesign defectNegligenceFederal preemptionComparative negligenceWrongful death claimsSurvival claimsStatute of limitationsJury misconduct
References
103
Case No. ADJ2661083 (AHM 0097587) ADJ2316310 (AHM 0088976)
Regular
Oct 06, 2014

GENEEN RODRIGUEZ vs. STATEK CORPORATION, ACE USA

This case involves defendant Statek Corporation's petition for reconsideration of an award granting applicant Geneen Rodriguez a spinal cord stimulator. The Administrative Law Judge found the utilization review (UR) determination materially defective due to communication issues and the reviewer's specialty. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the award, and found the UR determination was not materially defective. The Board concluded that any alleged defects were not significant enough to bypass the Independent Medical Review (IMR) process.

Utilization ReviewSpinal Cord StimulatorMaterially DefectiveIndependent Medical ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Medical NecessityCompetency of ReviewerInternal MedicineTimely CommunicationDubon v. World Restoration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palomino v. Winck

A longshoreman, referred to as the libelant, was injured aboard the respondent's vessel when a wooden crate being lowered caught his right ankle. The libelant claimed the injury was due to unseaworthiness or negligence, specifically implying a defective winch. However, no evidence of a defective winch was presented, nor was expert testimony offered to support the claim. The court distinguished this case from Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., where evidence of a defective winch was provided. Ultimately, the court concluded that the libelant failed to sustain his burden of proof, and thus, the claim was denied.

longshoreman injuryunseaworthinessnegligence claimburden of proofmaritime lawdefective equipmentvessel accidentDistrict Court decisionadmiralty lawlack of evidence
References
1
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00638
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2015

Williamson v. Ogden Cap Properties, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment. Defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that they lacked constructive notice of a defective mailbox panel, as they never inspected it. Their alleged lack of a key was not determinative, as a cursory inspection might have revealed the defect. The court also found that defendants failed to demonstrate their negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. Ultimately, plaintiff's testimony and a witness statement created an issue of fact regarding the defect's duration and discoverability, necessitating a trial.

Summary JudgmentConstructive NoticePremises LiabilityMailbox Panel DefectAppellate ReviewProximate CauseIssue of FactNegligencePostal Worker AccidentProperty Maintenance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Carlo v. Clyde Bergemann US, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action seeking damages for injuries sustained from a ladder fall. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court determined that while the plaintiff presented evidence of a defective ladder, they failed to establish that these defects were the proximate cause of the fall. This decision aligns with precedents requiring proof that the absence or defect of a safety device directly caused the injuries, citing cases such as Felker v Corning Inc.

Labor Law § 240(1)Negligence ActionLadder AccidentSummary Judgment MotionProximate CausationElevated WorkSafety Device DefectPersonal Injury ClaimWorkplace AccidentJudicial Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,298 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