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

Lechic v. Compania Peruana De Vapores

A longshoreman (plaintiff), employed by Universal Marine Services, Inc., sustained injuries while unloading coffee beans from a vessel owned by the defendant. The injury occurred due to the plaintiff slipping on loose coffee beans, which were a common byproduct of the unloading process using loading hooks. Customarily, the stevedore, Universal, was responsible for hiring coopers to clean up such spills. The defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting non-liability under § 5(b) of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Citing precedent from cases like Scindia Steam and Evans, the court affirmed that a shipowner is generally not liable for dangerous conditions arising from stevedore operations unless specific exceptions apply, such as a duty to intervene due to malfunctioning ship's gear or clear notice with anticipation of unavoidable danger. Finding no evidence of such exceptions and noting the stevedore's responsibility for cleanup, the court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint.

Longshoreman InjuryVessel Owner NegligenceLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentStevedore ResponsibilityCargo Operations SafetyDuty to InspectDangerous ConditionCoffee Beans SpillFederal Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1966

Rizzi v. Empresa Hondurena De Vapores, S.A.

The case addresses a preliminary question concerning a harbor worker's right to a warranty of seaworthiness. The plaintiff, an employee of Four Boro Contracting Co., was allegedly injured on the vessel M. S. Mabay while it was undergoing extensive repairs at Todd Shipyards. The court, referencing West v. United States, determined that the vessel was not in maritime service at the time of the injury due to the major repairs. Therefore, it concluded that no warranty of seaworthiness was applicable to the plaintiff. The court denied the plaintiff's claim regarding seaworthiness and directed the case to proceed solely on the cause of action for negligence. A trial has been scheduled for May 9, 1966.

SeaworthinessHarbor WorkerVessel RepairNegligenceMaritime LawDistrict CourtPreliminary QuestionWarrantyShipyard InjuryTort
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 27, 1992

Claim of Bolek v. George Tieman & Co.

Claimant, a surgical instrument polisher, sustained serious head injuries and posttraumatic stress syndrome after inhaling muriatic acid vapors and falling at work. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the disability was causally related to the accident and awarded benefits. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence for the causal relationship and properly declining to address the adequacy of claimant's notice of injury as it was not raised at the first hearing by the employer or carrier.

surgical instrument polishermuriatic acidacid vaporshead injuryposttraumatic stress syndromecausally related disabilityworkers' compensation benefitsnotice of injuryAppellate CourtBoard decision
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Public Administrator of Bronx County v. 485 East 188th Street Realty Corp.

This case is a personal injury and wrongful death action stemming from a flash fire that killed Ferrel Carino while he was refinishing wood floors. The fire was caused by flammable vapors from floor finishing products, with potential ignition sources including a stove pilot light or refrigerator spark. Carino's estate, represented by the Public Administrator, sued the building owner (485 East), management company (Appula), and product suppliers (New Palace, Dunham). Key legal issues included the adequacy of product warnings, whether Carino was a "knowledgeable user" of hazardous materials, and the proximate cause of the fire. The appellate court reinstated 485 East's third-party complaint against Appula, granted 485 East's motion for summary judgment dismissing Dunham's indemnification claim, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathFlash FireProduct LiabilityFailure to WarnFlammable MaterialsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawProximate Cause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boswell v. Leemilt's Petroleum, Inc.

Plaintiffs Thomas Boswell and his family purchased property next to a gas station owned by Leemilt’s Petroleum, Inc. and leased by Getty Petroleum Corporation in September 1988, soon noticing a strong gasoline odor. They later discovered a confirmed leakage from underground storage tanks had been reported by Getty in May 1988, initiating remediation efforts by Groundwater Technology, Inc. (GTI), but plaintiffs were not informed of the contamination or pre-purchase property tests. In May 1993, Boswell learned of contamination through a GTI request to place monitoring wells and observed blackening on his home's wall, subsequently receiving formal notification from the DEC. Plaintiffs initiated legal action in September 1994, asserting claims for trespass, nuisance, and Navigation Law violations due to gasoline seepage and vapors, seeking damages and remediation costs. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants based on the Statute of Limitations; however, the appellate court modified this, ruling that the property damage claims accrued in May 1993 and were thus timely, while Navigation Law claims had not yet accrued.

Environmental ContaminationGasoline LeakageProperty DamageStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTrespassNuisanceUnderground Storage TanksDiscovery Rule
References
9
Showing 1-6 of 6 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