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. 14-14-00345-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

Albert Lujan D/B/A Texas Wholesale Flower Co. v. Navistar, Inc., Navistar International Corporation, Navistar International Transportation Corp., International Truck and Engine Corporation and Santex Truck Centers, Ltd.

This appeal concerns a lawsuit for damages stemming from the Appellant's purchase of defective trucks from the Appellees. The Appellant, Albert Lujan d/b/a Texas Wholesale Flower Co., alleged breach of express and implied warranties, failure of essential purpose, and economic coercion/duress after the purchased trucks experienced repeated engine failures. The trial court granted the Appellees' motions for summary judgment, finding warranty disclaimers operative, dismissing claims for lack of standing, and striking the Appellant's supporting affidavit as a 'sham' and conclusory. The Appellant argues these rulings were erroneous, contending the disclaimers were invalid, factual issues existed regarding warranty breaches, and the court improperly adjudicated unpresented claims. Additionally, the Appellant challenges the striking of his affidavit and the acceptance of untimely evidence by the trial court.

Breach of WarrantySummary JudgmentEconomic DuressBusiness CoercionProduct LiabilityVehicle DefectsEngine FailureContract LawUniform Commercial CodeAppellate Procedure
References
34
Case No. 03-99-00265-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 2000

Ford Motor Company Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. And Daniel H. Foley, Jr./Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation v. Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation/Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. Daniel H. Foley, Jr. Freightliner Truck Corporation Sterling Truck Corporation And Ford Motor Company

This case involves an appeal from a district court judgment concerning an order from the Motor Vehicle Board of the Texas Department of Transportation. The dispute originated from Ford's proposed termination of Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc.'s franchise due to alleged abuse of Ford's Competitive Price Assistance (CPA) program, where Metro misrepresented customer names to obtain higher discounts. The Board found good cause for termination but imposed a conditional termination remedy requiring the sale of Metro's dealership. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination for good cause, the refusal to transfer the dealership to Eileen Beard, and the denial of Ford's requested chargeback expenses. However, it reversed and remanded the district court's affirmation of the Board's conditional termination remedy, finding it unlawful.

Franchise TerminationDealer FraudCPA Program AbuseStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawMotor Vehicle BoardEquitable EstoppelGood Cause TerminationAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. 01-18-00733-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2019

Jesus Garcia v. MTZ Trucking, Inc.

Jesus Garcia, an employee of MTZ Trucking, Inc., appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of MTZ Trucking in his suit for negligent training and supervision and gross negligence. Garcia was injured when his end-dump truck, while delivering product on a third party's premises, came into contact with a live power line. He alleged that MTZ Trucking failed to train and supervise him on operating the truck and avoiding electrical wires, despite his prior experience. MTZ Trucking argued it owed no such duty, asserting Garcia was a seasoned driver and the dangers of power lines are common and obvious. The First District of Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, holding that an employer does not owe a duty to warn or train an employee about hazards that are commonly known or already appreciated, which included the dangers of operating an end-dump truck near overhead electrical wires.

Summary judgmentNegligent trainingNegligent supervisionGross negligenceEmployer dutiesNon-subscribing employerWorkers' Compensation ActOpen and obvious hazardEnd-dump truckElectrical wires
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1999

Ma v. Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.

The defendants, Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., and Zhidong Wu, appealed from an order denying summary judgment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. The plaintiff cross-appealed from the same order, which granted summary judgment dismissing the action against Zhidong Wu. The appellate court dismissed Zhidong Wu's appeal on the grounds that he was not aggrieved by the provision. The court affirmed the order denying summary judgment to Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., finding it failed to establish its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding its alleged negligent maintenance. The plaintiff's cause of action against Zhidong Wu and any vicarious liability claim against Ryder Truck Rental, Inc., for Zhidong Wu's negligence were barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Automobile accidentPersonal injurySummary judgmentNegligenceVicarious liabilityWorkers' CompensationAppellate reviewCross-appealJudicial dismissalOrder affirmed
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. Salem Truck Leasing, Inc.

The defendants, Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., and Jose E. Cofresi, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was a passenger in a truck operated by Cofresi and owned by Salem, and both were co-employees involved in an accident during their employment. The appeals court modified the order, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Cofresi, citing Workers' Compensation Law co-employee immunity. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., as a triable issue of fact existed regarding Salem's alleged independent negligence in maintaining the truck.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee ImmunityVehicle AccidentTruck LeasingNegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion PracticeKings County
References
4
Case No. 07-99-0105-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2000

James R. Walzier v. Newton, A.L., Dba Newton Trucking Company

James R. Walzier appealed a judgment denying him recovery against his employer, A.L. Newton d/b/a A.L. Newton Trucking Company, following a vehicle accident. Walzier alleged defective brakes, while Newton presented evidence suggesting Walzier's sole proximate cause. Walzier objected, arguing the evidence violated Texas Labor Code § 406.033 and that sole proximate cause was an unpleaded affirmative defense under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 94. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo affirmed the trial court's judgment. It held that § 406.033 does not prohibit the defense of sole proximate cause and that sole proximate cause is an inferential rebuttal issue, not an affirmative defense, thus not subject to Rule 94's pleading requirement.

Workers' CompensationSole Proximate CauseAffirmative DefenseEvidentiary ObjectionAdmissibility of EvidenceEmployee NegligenceEmployer LiabilityTexas LawAppellate ReviewTrial Court Error
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albany Truck Rental Service, Inc. v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action to determine insurance coverage obligations following a fatal tractor-trailer accident. The accident killed Michael L. Bennekin, a passenger and co-employee of the driver, David L. Sinnamon, both employed by the NYS Department of Correctional Services, which had leased the tractor from Albany Truck. Travelers insured Albany Truck, while Merchants insured the Department. Bennekin's estate initially sued Sinnamon, Albany Truck, and General Tire. Sinnamon was dismissed due to workers' compensation exclusivity, insulating Albany Truck from vicarious liability for Sinnamon's negligence but not its own independent negligence. The court affirmed the Special Term's ruling that Travelers is the primary insurer and Merchants is the secondary/excess insurer for Albany Truck's independent negligence. However, the court reversed the Special Term's decision to refer attorneys' fees for factual determination, concluding that no fees could be allowed as Sinnamon did not incur them to the Attorney-General.

Insurance coveragePrimary and excess insuranceDuty to defendWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee defenseDeclaratory judgmentVicarious liabilityIndependent negligenceMotor vehicle accidentBreach of contract
References
10
Case No. 08-21-00001-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2022

in Re: Windstar Trucking, LLC

The Eighth District of Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso granted a mandamus petition filed by Windstar Trucking, LLC. Windstar sought to overturn a trial court's denial of its motion to designate an unknown "John Doe" as a responsible third party in a civil negligence suit. The underlying suit stemmed from a fatal traffic accident involving a Windstar truck, a Volkswagen Passat, and allegedly a white pickup truck that made an illegal left turn. The court addressed whether an illegal left turn under the Texas Transportation Code constitutes a "criminal act" for responsible third party designation and if supporting facts can be pleaded in the motion for leave. The court concluded that an illegal turn is a criminal act and that facts can be presented in the motion for leave, thereby directing the trial court to allow the designation.

MandamusResponsible Third PartyTraffic AccidentCriminal ActPleading RequirementsTexas Transportation CodeIllegal Left TurnFair Notice StandardStatutory ConstructionJudicial Discretion
References
33
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTHEWS TRUCKING CO. v. Smith

This personal injury case centers on whether the correct defendant was sued within the two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff, Smith, initially sued Matthews Trucking Company, Inc., d/b/a Louisiana-Matthews Trucking Company, Inc., a distinct entity from the correct defendant, Matthews-Lufkin, Inc., d/b/a Matthews Trucking Company. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment and affirmed the trial court's summary judgment in favor of Matthews-Lufkin, Inc., holding that suing the wrong defendant did not toll the statute of limitations. The Court further clarified that the "official mistake" rule does not apply to alleged errors by the Secretary of State's office, and affirmed the finality of the trial court's judgment despite its erroneous dismissal of an intervenor, Employers Casualty Company.

Personal InjuryStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCorporate IdentityWrongful DefendantMisnomerOfficial Mistake RuleAppellate ReviewTexas LawInsurance Carrier
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 2,307 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