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

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trigg v. H.K. Ferguson Co.

The plaintiff-in-error sought damages for personal injuries after his car skidded off an embankment at a "dead-end" intersection within the Wolf Creek Ordnance Plant construction site, striking a power pole. He sued the general contractors, H. K. Ferguson Company and Oman Construction Company, alleging negligence in failing to provide warning signs, guard rails, and maintaining a hazardous power pole. The trial court directed a verdict for the defendants. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial. The appellate court determined that a jury should decide whether the contractors were negligent, considering their responsibility to maintain safe road conditions during construction, and whether the plaintiff was contributorily negligent. The court clarified that contractors are not immune from liability for liability, and plan approvals do not negate their duty for public safety if a dangerous condition results.

personal injurynegligencecontractor liabilityhighway constructionroad safetycontributory negligencedirected verdictappellate reviewremandgovernment contracts
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2013

Addonisio v. City of New York

Plaintiff Nick Addonisio sustained electrocution injuries while cutting into a street intersection to install telecommunications equipment, striking an underground live cable owned by Consolidated Edison, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed various Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against Verizon New York, Inc., the City of New York, Consolidated Edison, Inc., and One Call entities. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, vacating the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against the City and the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Con Ed, while affirming the dismissals against Verizon and One Call. The court found issues of fact regarding Con Ed's creation of a dangerous condition by not installing a protective plate and the City's compliance with Industrial Code § 23-1.13 (b) (4). The court also addressed arguments concerning superseding cause and the defendants' duty to comply with safety standards.

Electrocution InjuryExcavation WorkLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionProperty Owner LiabilityContractor LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationsSuperseding Cause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1986

Goslin v. La Mora

Plaintiff's decedent was fatally injured while setting up defendant Nancy L. La Mora's mobile home, which slipped from its jacks and crushed him. The wrongful death action was based on theories of the mobile home being a dangerous instrumentality, the site constituting a dangerous condition imposing a higher duty of care on the landowner, and the landowner's failure to provide a safe workplace. The court found that an unelevated mobile home is not a dangerous instrumentality, and while on jacks it could be, the decedent's voluntary work placed it in that position. The court also determined that the landowner was not expected to recognize the falling trailer as a hidden danger, and the difficulties of balancing it were obvious to the decedent, who had prior experience. Finally, the contention regarding failure to provide a safe workplace was rejected because the decedent was a volunteer, not an employee protected by Labor Law.

Wrongful DeathMobile Home AccidentLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionDangerous InstrumentalityVolunteer WorkerPremises LiabilityNegligenceSafe Workplace DutyDuty of Care
References
5
Case No. 92-CV-1085
Regular Panel Decision

Capriotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff Salvatore Capriotti, a yardmaster for Conrail, suffered heart problems exacerbated by stressful work conditions and increased responsibilities after staff cutbacks. He sued Conrail under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for negligent infliction of emotional distress and a direct physical injury claim. Conrail renewed its motion for summary judgment based on the Supreme Court's reversal in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall and Carlisle, which established the "zone of danger" test for emotional distress claims under FELA. The court found Capriotti's claim to be essentially the same as Carlisle's — "too much work, not too dangerous work" — and therefore, he did not meet the "zone of danger" requirement. The court also rejected his claim under the Hours of Service Act, stating that FELA parameters still apply, requiring proof of being in the zone of danger. Consequently, Conrail's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Capriotti's complaint was dismissed.

FELASummary JudgmentEmotional DistressZone of DangerStressful Work ConditionsHeart ConditionHours of Service ActNegligence Per SeRailroad Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richard H. v. Consilvio

Petitioner Richard H., diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, has a history of involuntary commitments and bank robberies. This appeal concerns the Commissioner of Mental Health's application for a retention order in a secure psychiatric facility. A lower court initially ordered his transfer to a nonsecure facility, crediting his testimony and an advisory jury opinion that he was not dangerous. The Appellate Division, upon review, found that the Commissioner had established Richard H. suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder." The court emphasized his history of dangerous behavior, noncompliance with medication, escapes from nonsecure facilities, and delusional beliefs. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and Richard H. was ordered to be retained in a secure facility.

Paranoid SchizophreniaInvoluntary CommitmentInsanity AcquitteeDangerous Mental DisorderRetention OrderMental Hygiene LawCriminal Procedure LawMedication NoncomplianceBank RobberyDelusional Beliefs
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2004

Humble Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Gomez

Justice O’Neill dissents from the Court's application of the sophisticated-user doctrine, arguing it wrongly absolves Humble, a silica flint supplier, of its duty to warn. The dissent highlights that silica flint is dangerous, employees were unaware of hazards, employers neglected safety, and warnings were easy to provide and would have prevented injury to workers like Raymond Gomez. O'Neill asserts that the Court misinterpreted precedent and Restatement factors, establishing a dangerous precedent that undermines worker safety. The dissent critiques the Court for overlooking Humble's misleading information and the industry's inadequate appreciation of silica dangers, suggesting the ruling is an attempt to address mass-tort claims legislatively rather than judicially.

product liabilitysophisticated user doctrineduty to warnsilica dust exposuresilicosisworker safetymass tortsdissenting opinionTexas lawcausation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schultz v. Hi-Tech Construction & Management Services, Inc.

This legal text discusses the application of Labor Law § 200, which codifies the common-law duty of landowners and general contractors to provide a safe work environment. The statute's liability is governed by common-law negligence principles, and it extends to cases involving ladders. The text categorizes Labor Law § 200 cases into those stemming from dangerous premises conditions and those from the manner of work performance. When injuries arise from a dangerous condition, a general contractor may be liable if they controlled the worksite and had actual or constructive notice of the hazard. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding triable issues of fact regarding the cause of a ladder slip and fall, and whether the defendants had control and notice of the dangerous condition.

Labor Law § 200Workplace SafetyCommon-Law NegligenceDangerous ConditionsSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactGeneral Contractor LiabilityLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityNotice of Dangerous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland v. United States

In this Federal Tort Claims Act case, a plaintiff sued the United States after slipping and falling in a Post Office in Bronx, New York, on a wet floor during a snowy/rainy day in March 1993. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming the government breached its duty of care. However, the court found that the defendant had taken reasonable precautions, including posting a "Caution — Wet Floor" sign and adhering to standard mopping procedures on wet days. Applying New York law, the court concluded that the government did not breach its duty, as wet floors on rainy days constitute an obvious danger, and a proprietor is not liable unless conditions are inherently dangerous or known dangers are not remedied. Judgment was ultimately entered in favor of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallPost OfficePremises LiabilityGovernment LiabilityNegligenceNew York Negligence LawObvious DangerDuty to WarnStandard of Care
References
12
Case No. W2004-00477-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2005

James Crain, et.al v. Baptist Memorial Hospital

James Crain, an apprentice electrician, sustained severe burns while working on an electrical project for TAM Electric Company, an independent contractor, at Baptist Memorial Hospital. Crain filed a lawsuit against Baptist Memorial Hospital, alleging negligence under a theory of premises liability, claiming the hospital owed him a duty to warn of latent defects or dangerous conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Baptist, determining that the work was inherently dangerous and thus, the landowner (Baptist) did not owe a duty of care to the independent contractor's employee. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing that the exception to the general duty of a landowner applies when an independent contractor is hired to perform inherently dangerous work, and working with electricity falls into this category.

Premises LiabilityNegligenceIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentInherently Dangerous WorkDuty of CareElectrical AccidentLandowner LiabilityAppellate ReviewTennessee Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 726 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