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

Exxon Corp. v. Quinn

Charles Randy Quinn, an employee of Woodard Electric Company, was injured while working on a utility pole on an Exxon lease when the pole was reenergized by his foreman, C.J. Joyner. Quinn sued Exxon Corporation for negligence, alleging Exxon participated in the decision not to use a "red tag procedure" for safety and failed to provide a safe place to work. The trial court initially rendered judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Exxon, but the court of appeals reversed and rendered judgment for Quinn. This court reversed the court of appeals' judgment regarding Exxon's "participation" due to lack of control but remanded the case for the court of appeals to weigh the sufficiency of evidence on the "unsafe premises" theory, finding that Exxon's premises might have been unsafe due to the positioning of disconnect switches, transformers, and jumper wires.

Personal InjuryLandowner LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseSafety ProceduresRed Tag ProcedureUtility Pole Accident
References
10
Case No. 05-18-00541-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2019

AAA Cooper Transportation and XTRA Lease, LLC v. Olynthus M. Davis and Property & Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

Olynthus M. Davis, a warehouseman, was injured while loading a trailer leased by AAA Cooper Transportation from XTRA Lease, LLC when an E-track rail detached and impaled his leg. Davis sued the appellants for providing an unsafe trailer and negligence in its inspection, repair, and maintenance. A jury found AAA Cooper 40% negligent, XTRA Lease 50% negligent, and Davis 10% negligent, awarding Davis damages. Appellants appealed, raising issues regarding the trial court's submission of a general negligence question instead of premises liability, and the sufficiency of evidence to support the jury's findings on expert testimony and future medical expenses. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding the trailer was not a premises, and upheld the admissibility and sufficiency of the expert testimonies.

NegligencePremises LiabilityExpert TestimonySufficiency of EvidenceFuture Medical ExpensesCausationDamagesWorkplace InjuryForklift AccidentE-track System
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Bosworth

Miss Carrie Bosworth sued Continental Paper Bag Company for the loss of an eye due to a hot metal piece from a saw machine. The core issue was the bag company's negligence in providing an unsafe working environment and defective machinery, even though Bosworth was found to be an employee of an independent contractor, W. H. Devers. The jury found the bag company negligent, leading to an $8,000 judgment for Bosworth. The bag company sought indemnity from Western Indemnity Company and Fidelity & Casualty Company of New York, who were impleaded. The appellate court affirmed the judgment against the bag company, citing exceptions to the general rule regarding independent contractors when the original employer furnishes unsafe premises or inherently dangerous equipment. It also affirmed the conditional indemnity judgment against Fidelity & Casualty Company and attorney's fees against both insurers for breaching their duty to defend.

NegligenceIndustrial AccidentIndependent ContractorPremises LiabilityUnsafe MachineryDuty of CareIndemnity InsuranceEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryVision Loss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reyes v. Arco Wentworth Management Corp.

The plaintiff, German Reyes, was injured while employed by Grasskeepers Landscaping, Inc. on property owned by Ramapo Cirque Homeowners Association, Inc. and managed by Arco Wentworth Management Corporation. The injury occurred when his lawn mower entered a hole, causing it to tip and injure his leg. Reyes filed a lawsuit alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing both unsafe premises conditions and defective equipment due to the absence of an emergency shut-off switch. Ramapo moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked supervisory control over the work and that the work was routine maintenance, thus falling outside the scope of Labor Law § 241 (6). The court denied Ramapo's motion for summary judgment, determining that Ramapo failed to meet its prima facie burden regarding premises liability and that a triable issue of fact existed under Labor Law § 241 (6). The court also discussed the inadmissibility of the plaintiff's English-language affidavit without a qualified translator's affidavit, but noted that other admissible evidence, such as the translated deposition transcript, still raised sufficient issues of fact to defeat summary judgment. Arco's separate motion for summary judgment was denied as premature.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityDangerous EquipmentSummary JudgmentLabor LawNotice RequirementSupervision and ControlConstruction SafetyExcavationOSHA Violations
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1999

Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action where a plaintiff sustained injuries from a trip and fall over a step stool in an office corridor. The defendant premises occupant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of notice regarding the hazardous condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.). The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial, finding that the plaintiff's submissions raised issues of fact concerning the cluttered corridor and whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the danger. The court also upheld the consideration of a co-worker's affidavit, which detailed prior complaints about the corridor's condition, as no prejudice or willful disobedience of disclosure obligations was demonstrated by the defendant.

Personal InjuryTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionIssue of FactConstructive NoticeActual NoticeCo-worker AffidavitDisclosure DisputeAppellate Affirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 2000

Star Enterprise v. Marze

Windel B. Marze, a truck driver, was severely injured after falling on a beam at a Texaco truck stop owned by Star Enterprise in 1994 while attempting to use an intercom to weigh his truck. The fall necessitated knee surgery, which subsequently led to a severe postoperative infection. Despite multiple attempts to control the infection, it spread throughout his body, resulting in an above-the-knee amputation and ultimately causing his death from septic shock in 1997. His surviving family, Mary Ann Marze, Lori Ann Marze, and Scott Windel Marze, along with Pacific Employer’s Insurance, initiated a premises liability suit against Star Enterprise, later amending it to include a wrongful death claim. The jury found Star Enterprise negligent and awarded the Marzes over $1.6 million in damages, a judgment affirmed by the appellate court despite Star Enterprise's arguments regarding jury charge errors and insufficient evidence.

Premises LiabilityWrongful DeathSurvival ActionNegligenceProximate CauseJury Charge ErrorEvidentiary ErrorMedical CausationPostoperative InfectionSeptic Shock
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Unsafe Building & Structure Number 97 Columbia Heights

The City of New York filed a motion to tax and adjust costs and disbursements related to an Unsafe Building proceeding for a property at 97 Columbia Street, Brooklyn, following a major fire in February 1980. The city sought judgment for demolition costs incurred after a court precept was issued. The respondent owner, 97 Columbia Heights Housing Corp., challenged the city's claim, arguing that the demolition lacked competitive bidding and that the owner was denied an opportunity to perform the work. Justice Gerald Adler found no merit in the respondent's contentions, ruling that an emergency justified bypassing competitive bidding and that the owner failed to meet the conditions to perform the work themselves. The court ultimately granted the city's motion in all respects.

Unsafe BuildingDemolition CostsEmergency DemolitionCompetitive Bidding ExemptionAdministrative CodeGeneral Municipal LawProperty Owner ResponsibilityMechanic's LienFire DamagePublic Safety
References
0
Case No. Index No. 510151/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Normile v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd.

This case involves the interpretation of a general liability insurance policy's "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project" endorsement. The plaintiff, Catherine Normile, was injured off-premises by an employee of 305 Union St. Station, Inc. (Kittery Restaurant) who was returning from a food delivery. Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (the insurer) disclaimed coverage, asserting the incident did not occur at the specified covered premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the policy's language, which limits coverage to operations "necessary or incidental to those premises," requires a direct premises-based connection, rather than merely an operation incidental to the business itself. Consequently, coverage was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not have the requisite spatial or circumstantial link to the designated premises.

Insurance LawGeneral LiabilityPolicy InterpretationDesignated PremisesOff-premises IncidentFood DeliverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryCoverage Limitation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copeland v. Leaf, Inc.

Cora L. Copeland, an employee of Leaf, Inc., was injured while crossing a public street between the plant and an employer-provided parking lot in Memphis, Tennessee. The trial court denied workers' compensation benefits, applying a strict interpretation of the 'premises rule' from Lollar v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., which held that injuries sustained off the employer's premises are not compensable. The Supreme Court re-evaluated Lollar, acknowledging that separating an employer's premises by a public way creates an inconsistency. Citing various state precedents and Professor Larson's treatise, the Court extended the premises rule. They held that injuries sustained by employees while crossing a public way that bisects an employer’s premises, when traveling a direct route between the plant facility and the parking lot, are compensable. Therefore, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the case remanded for damages assessment.

Workers' CompensationPremises LiabilityCourse of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic Way ExceptionEmployer-Provided ParkingNoncontiguous PremisesInjury CompensationTennessee LawStatutory Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mender v. Bryant

W. A. Bryant, an employee of John Mender d/b/a Liberty Grocery and Market, sued for personal injuries sustained when he stumbled over a defective metal strip on a walk-in box door, resulting in a double hernia. Bryant alleged negligence on the part of Mender for maintaining unsafe premises. Mender, who employed more than three workers and did not have worker's compensation insurance, was unable to assert defenses of assumed risk or contributory negligence. A jury trial found Mender negligent and awarded Bryant $1515 in damages. The district court entered judgment based on the verdict, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryNegligenceEmployer LiabilityDefective PremisesWorkers' Compensation ExemptionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewHernia InjuryPremises LiabilityProximate Cause
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 954 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