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

Citizen v. M/V TRITON

This Memorandum Opinion addresses an injury sustained by a plaintiff longshoreman in the Port of Beaumont on July 26, 1973, while working for Gulf Stevedore Corporation, an independent contractor for the defendant vessel owner, M/V TRITON. The longshoreman was injured after stepping into an open space between bags of flour in the No. 4 hold, a condition created by improper stowage by the Stevedore during a previous loading in Galveston. The core legal issue revolves around the interpretation of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s & Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which eliminated unseaworthiness as a basis for vessel liability and shifted the primary duty for a safe workplace to the stevedore. The Court found that the Stevedore was in sole charge of all loading operations, and the vessel owner had no duty regarding the stowage method, thus precluding a finding of vessel negligence. Consequently, the Court entered judgment for the defendant vessel owner, emphasizing that the burden of proving negligence was not met.

Longshoremen's & Harbor Workers' Compensation Act1972 AmendmentsVessel NegligenceStevedore DutyUnseaworthiness DoctrineSafe Place to WorkCargo StowageMaritime LawThird Party LiabilityPort of Beaumont
References
10
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05574 [242 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2025

Murillo v. Downtown NYC Owner, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order dismissing Luis Murillo's Labor Law claims (§ 241 (6) and § 200) and common-law negligence claim against Downtown NYC Owner, LLC, and related entities. The court held that Murillo, a worker responsible for debris removal, could not recover for injuries caused by the very condition he was tasked with remedying. Furthermore, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' common-law and contractual indemnity claims against third-party defendant William Erath & Son, Inc., concluding that Erath had no contractual duty to perform debris removal, and thus Murillo's accident did not arise out of Erath's work. The decision emphasizes the principle that responsibility for cleanup tasks dictates liability.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkDebris RemovalContractual IndemnityCommon-Law IndemnitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityNegligenceThird-Party Claim
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clemente v. Farrell Lines Inc.

The plaintiff, a cargo lasher, brought an action against Farrell Lines Incorporated, the owner of the SS African Comet, and Universal Maritime Services, Inc., an independent stevedore, for injuries sustained while working on the vessel. Farrell removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment under Rule 56, F.R.Civ.P., arguing that under the 1972 amendments to the LHWCA, there was no evidence of negligence by the vessel owner. The plaintiff alleged insufficient lighting and an overcrowded hatch contributed to his injury. The court granted Farrell's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the accident was solely caused by a fellow longshoreman operating a hilo machine, and that the vessel owner did not have a duty to supervise the stevedore's operations.

Summary JudgmentLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActVessel NegligenceStevedore OperationsCargo LashingHilo Machine AccidentDuty to Provide Safe WorkplaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Maritime Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hite v. Maritime Overseas Corporation

Mr. Hite, a ship repairman, sued Maritime Overseas Corporation under diversity of citizenship for injuries sustained on May 2, 1973, while working aboard the SS OVERSEAS JOYCE in Port Neches, Texas. He received an electric shock from a defective drop cord, causing him to fall. Both Mr. Hite and a witness knew of the cord's defective condition prior to the accident. The defendant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act Amendments of 1972 apply land-based negligence concepts, and vessel owners are not liable for open and obvious dangers known to independent contractors. The plaintiff contended that maritime negligence concepts should apply, asserting a nondelegable duty for the vessel owner to provide a safe workplace and inspect equipment. The Court, interpreting the 1972 Amendments, found that Congress intended land-based negligence concepts to apply, with exceptions for comparative negligence and assumption of risk. The Court concluded that the defective drop cord was an open and obvious condition, and thus the defendant owed no duty to warn the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant's motion for a directed verdict was granted, and the plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed with prejudice.

Maritime LawLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActShip Repairman InjuryVessel Owner NegligenceLand-Based Negligence ConceptsOpen and Obvious DangerDirected VerdictAssumption of RiskComparative NegligenceDuty to Warn
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. City of New York

Plaintiff Partnow, a dock builder, was injured in a slip and fall on a barge deck while working for Reicon, a marine construction contractor, at a site for the City of New York. He sued Reicon, Reinauer Transportation Companies, L.P. (vessel owner and Reicon's parent), and the City for Labor Law and LHWCA violations. Defendants Reicon and Reinauer moved for summary judgment, arguing LHWCA's exclusive remedy and a lack of vessel negligence. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Reinauer's employer status and its breach of "turnover duty" as a vessel owner by allegedly providing a barge with a defective nonskid coating. Consequently, the court denied dismissal for the LHWCA vessel negligence claims and the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims, while granting dismissal solely for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to the absence of a gravity-related injury.

LHWCASummary Judgment MotionVessel Owner LiabilityLabor Law (New York State)Corporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationsMaritime NegligenceDock Builder InjuryBarge OperationsNon-Skid Coating Failure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pelligrino v. Universal Maritime Service Co.

This maritime personal injury case involves plaintiff Dennis Pelligrino, a marine carpenter, who was injured after falling from grease-coated heavy machinery he was securing on a vessel. He sued Universal Maritime Service Company, Inc., the stevedoring company, and Waterman Steamship Corporation, the vessel owner. The court denied Universal's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding its alleged negligence in handling the cargo and failing to ensure safety. Conversely, Waterman's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, as the court found no evidence that the vessel owner breached its duties to longshoremen or actively participated in the cargo operations. Consequently, the complaint against Waterman was dismissed, while the action against Universal was severed.

Maritime personal injuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActStevedoring negligenceVessel owner dutiesSummary judgmentCargo securingHazardous conditionsCosmolineNegligenceShipowner liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Isthmian Lines, Inc.

A longshoreman filed an action against the owner of a vessel for personal injuries due to its negligence. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the longshoreman's rights against the defendant were assigned to his employer and its insurer due to his acceptance of compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. The court denied the defendant's motion, citing a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s employer and its insurer (who also insured the defendant) and the plaintiff, which allowed the plaintiff to proceed with the action despite the assignment.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuriesNegligenceConflict of InterestsAssignment of RightsMotion to Dismiss
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Hevi-Duty Electric Co.

The plaintiff, Williams, sued Hevi-Duty Electric Company and other state defendants for racial discrimination and retaliatory failure to hire under Title VII, § 1981, and § 1983. The court found that Hevi-Duty discriminated against Williams by manipulating its one-year application retention policy and through word-of-mouth recruitment, effectively excluding him due to his race and prior EEOC charge. The court entered judgment for Williams against Hevi-Duty, ordering hiring, back-pay, and attorney fees, and permanently enjoining further discrimination. Claims against the state defendants were dismissed due to sovereign immunity or lack of discriminatory conduct.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationRetaliation (Employment)Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1866Disparate TreatmentHiring PracticesApplication PolicyWord-of-Mouth Recruitment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2003

McConville v. Reinauer Transportation Companies, L.P.

Edward McConville was injured while performing dock-building work for Reinauer, when struck by a crane hoist block. He received no-fault benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, which barred recovery against Reinauer as his employer. However, McConville sued Reinauer under 33 USC § 905 (b) for negligence in its capacity as vessel owner. The Supreme Court granted Reinauer's motion for summary judgment, finding the accident occurred during employer duties. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that a factual issue existed regarding a potential crane defect and Reinauer's negligence as vessel owner, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Maritime lawPersonal injuryVessel owner liabilityLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary judgmentAppellate reviewCrane accidentDock constructionDual capacity doctrineDuty of care
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 4,618 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