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

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

Sergio Fraire v. Budget Rent-A-Car of El Paso, Inc.

Sergio Fraire appealed the trial court’s take-nothing grant of hybrid summary judgment in favor of his former employer, Budget Rent-A-Car of El Paso, Inc., in a non-subscriber negligence action. Fraire was injured in September 2009 while repairing a rental truck's broken roll-up door, a task outside his service manager duties, after being pressed by his supervisor to expedite truck repairs due to a mechanic's absence. He alleged Budget breached its duty to warn and provide adequate equipment. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment regarding the duty to warn, concluding that Fraire, an experienced mechanic, was aware of common dangers. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment concerning Budget's duty to furnish adequate equipment and proximate cause, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the availability of suitable tools and whether Fraire's actions were the sole cause of his injuries.

NegligenceWorkplace injurySummary judgment appealNon-subscriber employerDuty to warnAdequate equipmentProximate causationAppellate court decisionTexas lawEmployer liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schumacher v. Richards Shear Co.

Jasen, J. dissents from the majority's decision, which he interprets as imposing an independent duty to warn on Logemann, a successor corporation, for a defectively designed product. He argues that traditional exceptions to successor liability do not apply, nor is a "special relationship" established under common-law negligence principles. The dissent further contends that even if a duty to warn existed, the obvious nature of the defect negates such a duty, and the plaintiff has failed to establish proximate cause. Jasen, J. concludes that the majority's decision reshapes established negligence concepts unnecessarily, especially given other available remedies like workers' compensation and claims against the original manufacturer, Richards Shear.

Product LiabilitySuccessor Corporation LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligenceProximate CauseDesign DefectManufacturing DefectWorkers' CompensationStrict Products LiabilityEconomic Relationship
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. a & T Transportation Co.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned, prompting him and his family to sue his employer, A & Transportation Company, Inc. (A & T). The Allens alleged that A & T failed in its duty to warn or train Terry Allen about the specific handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted A & T's motion for summary judgment without specifying the grounds. On appeal, the Allens contended the trial court erred because the employer has a nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that A & T had no duty to instruct an experienced employee like Terry Allen in his chosen trade, especially since the dangers related to liquid loads were considered known in the profession and not unexpected.

Summary JudgmentPersonal InjuryEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligence ClaimTrucking AccidentTanker Truck OperationsExperienced EmployeeNo-Evidence MotionAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. 06-01-00034-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Terry Allen and Wife, Brenda Allen, Individually and A/N/F Matthew Allen, a Minor, Timothy Allen, a Minor and Jennifer Allen, a Minor v. a & T Transportation Company, Inc.

Terry Allen, a truck driver, sustained injuries when his partially-loaded tanker truck overturned. He and his wife, individually and as next friends for their minor children, sued his employer, A & T Transportation Company, Inc., alleging that the company failed to warn or train him about the unique handling characteristics of a partially-loaded tanker. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of A & T. On appeal, the Allens argued that the trial court erred because A & T had a mandatory and nondelegable duty to warn employees of hazards and provide a safe workplace. The appellate court found no legal authority supporting a duty for an employer to train an experienced individual in their chosen trade. The court concluded that the employer had no duty to instruct Terry Allen, thereby negating a necessary element of the Allens' negligence claim. Consequently, the summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer DutyNegligence ClaimTruck Driver InjuryTanker Truck AccidentPartial Load HazardDuty to WarnDuty to TrainExperienced Employee
References
35
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06773
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2025

Sullivan v. Flynn

Loren S. Sullivan, an appellant, was injured after tripping on a wooden construction brace while taking measurements for custom kitchen cabinetry in a new home, leading him to sue the contractors, Gerald R. Flynn et al., for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they had no duty to warn and that the readily observable brace was not a substantial factor in the injury. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, asserting that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the worksite was maintained in a reasonably safe condition, thereby leaving a question of fact for trial. The court emphasized that the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition only negates the duty to warn, not the broader duty to maintain a safe workplace. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the defendants' worksite was indeed safe.

Safe Place to WorkConstruction Site SafetyTripping HazardLabor Law § 200Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDuty to WarnDangerous ConditionQuestion of FactAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cariffe v. P/R Hoegh Cairn & M/V Cairn

Plaintiff Frank Cariffe, a longshoreman, was injured by inhaling hazardous Metanil Yellow while unloading drums from a container at Brooklyn Pier #9. The defendant, M/V Hoegh Cairn (CAIRN), was aware of the hazardous nature of the cargo but allegedly failed to label the container or provide a dangerous cargo manifest to Cariffe's employer, Universal Maritime Service Stevedoring Company (UMS). CAIRN moved for summary judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn because Metanil Yellow was not on the official Hazardous Materials Table at the time of the incident, only on an optional list. The court denied CAIRN's motion, asserting that a shipowner retains a common law duty to warn stevedores of known hidden dangers, even if not specifically mandated by federal regulations for all substances. The court determined that whether CAIRN breached its duty of reasonable care and whether UMS had adequate knowledge or could have discovered the hazard by reasonable care are questions for the trier of fact.

Longshoreman InjuryHazardous CargoDuty to WarnShipowner LiabilitySummary Judgment DenialMetanil YellowMaritime LawFederal RegulationsStevedore ResponsibilityHidden Danger
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2010

In Re Keller

This case involves an appeal by Judge Sharon Keller against a Public Warning issued by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct. The Commission's warning stemmed from her decision not to keep the clerk's office open past business hours, which impeded a death penalty appeal. While a Special Master recommended no formal action, the Commission issued the warning after formal proceedings. This Special Court of Review concluded that, under Texas law, a public warning cannot be issued following formal proceedings; sanctions are only permissible after informal investigations. Consequently, the court vacated the Commission's order and dismissed the charges against Judge Keller, without commenting on the accusations' merits.

Judicial misconductPublic warningFormal proceedingsInformal proceedingsTexas ConstitutionGovernment CodeDue processJudicial reviewSanctionsCensure
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 3,549 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