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

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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olsen v. James Miller Marine Service, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Reicon/Reinauer, was injured while working on a barge by falling into an uncovered hole. He received federal workers’ compensation benefits under the LHWCA. In this action, plaintiff alleged both state Labor Law and federal LHWCA violations. The Supreme Court denied appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also granted Reinauer and Reicon's motion to dismiss appellants' contribution cross-claims. The appellate court modified the order to reinstate appellants' contribution cross-claims against Reinauer and Reicon, finding a triable issue of fact regarding their negligence as vessel owners. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for appellants on plaintiff's claims and the grant of summary judgment to plaintiff on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and found that material issues of fact exist regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Con Edison. The LHWCA does not preempt the Labor Law claims against Con Edison and D'Onofrio, and third-party claims for contribution from an employer/vessel owner are not foreclosed under the LHWCA if based on negligence in the vessel-owner capacity.

Workers' CompensationLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActLHWCALabor LawMaritime LawFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkplace Safety
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 1963

Chevis v. Luckenbach Overseas Corp.

Austin Chevis, a longshoreman, died in an accident aboard the SS LENA LUCKENBACH in Beaumont, Texas, due to unseaworthiness and negligence of the vessel owners. His wife and children filed a civil action under the Texas Wrongful Death Statutes. The court found the vessel owners, Luckenbach Overseas Corporation and Maritime Overseas Corporation, grossly negligent and the vessel unseaworthy, which proximately caused Chevis's death. The stevedore, James J. Flanagan Shipping Corporation, was found to have breached its warranty of workmanlike service. Austin Chevis was found 20% contributorily negligent. The court awarded the plaintiffs $128,000 in actual damages and $32,000 in exemplary damages, after reducing for contributory negligence, and granted 50% indemnity to the defendants from the stevedore.

Wrongful DeathMaritime AccidentLongshoremenVessel UnseaworthinessEmployer NegligenceGross NegligenceContributory NegligenceIndemnity ClaimSubrogation RightsDamages Award
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05844 [198 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2021

Morley v. BPP St Owner, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a seven-year-old child, JM, who sustained a thumb injury at an ice skating rink due to an alleged defect in the dasher boards. The child's parent, Risa Morley, filed a negligence action against BPP St Owner, LLC and IRE Crown Rinks, LLC, alleging negligent ownership, operation, and control of the rink, including negligent supervision and maintenance, and sought damages for post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD). The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order, reinstating the claims for negligent assembly and maintenance of the dasher boards and the derivative loss of society. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the negligent supervision and PTSD claims, finding insufficient evidence to raise an issue of fact.

NegligenceIce Skating RinkDasher BoardsSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityPersonal InjuryPTSDNegligent MaintenanceAppellate ReviewChild Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heim v. City of New York

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting admiralty jurisdiction for personal injuries sustained after falling into a pier hole in Staten Island while preparing to load a vessel. The defendants included The City of New York (pier owner), George W. Rogers Construction Corporation (general contractor), Ocean Burning, Inc. (vessel owner), and S.A.S. Equipment Company, Inc. (demolition contractor). The plaintiff alleged negligence by all defendants, particularly against Rogers for placing the vessel alongside the pier without warning of hazards. The court examined whether admiralty jurisdiction applied under 46 U.S.C. § 740, which extends jurisdiction to injuries 'caused by a vessel on navigable water' even if consummated on land. The court found no admiralty jurisdiction, concluding that the injury was a 'classic non-maritime tort' unrelated to traditional maritime activity or the vessel's negligent handling. Claims under the Federal Longshoremen’s Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905(b)) and 28 U.S.C. § 1331 were also rejected, as they do not create independent causes of action or extend jurisdiction in this context. Consequently, the motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction were granted, without prejudice to state court proceedings.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawPersonal InjuryPier AccidentFederal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionLongshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPendent JurisdictionTort LawVessel Liability
References
7
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 03353 [239 AD3d 688]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Vindell v. Site 2 DSA Owner, LLC

The plaintiff, Deylis Vindell, an employee, was injured at a construction site while removing wood in a muddy, water-filled excavation, causing him to fall. He sued the owners, construction manager, and a subcontractor, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court partially granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and a portion of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the decision. It reinstated the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, citing conflicting evidence regarding the water's source and whether the plaintiff was hired to remedy that specific defect. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d), finding it inapplicable as the plaintiff did not slip or trip and was not using a surface covered by the code.

Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentConstruction Site AccidentMuddy ConditionsExcavation WorkIndustrial Code Violation12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d)Appellate Review
References
16
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

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
Showing 1-10 of 5,780 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