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

Genen v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

The dissenting opinion addresses the direct liability of Hunter Excavating Corp., a snow removal contractor, for a plaintiff's personal injuries after slipping on ice at a Metro-North station. The dissent argues that Hunter did not owe a direct duty to the plaintiff, as its contract with Metro-North (the landowner) was not a comprehensive maintenance agreement that displaced Metro-North's duty, nor did Hunter's actions launch a new force of harm. The opinion distinguishes this case from precedents where landowners or contractors performing negligent removal were held liable, emphasizing the lack of an independent duty or detrimental reliance by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the dissent contends that Hunter's contract specified service upon notification, and thus no additional duty to continually monitor conditions was imposed. Finally, the dissenting judges considered requests for summary judgment dismissing claims against Hunter (third-party action) and Metro-North (plaintiff's primary action), finding them without merit due to unresolved questions of fact regarding notice to Metro-North and Hunter's contractual indemnification obligation.

Snow removal liabilityIndependent contractor liabilityPremises liabilityDirect liabilityContractual dutySummary judgmentDissenting opinionPersonal injuryNegligenceThird-party action
References
10
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
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
Mar 21, 2008

WTC Captive Insurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance

This opinion addresses the second phase of a dispute between the City's 9/11 clean-up insurance carriers, focusing on which carriers must defend the City and its contractors against lawsuits from injured clean-up workers. Plaintiff WTC Captive Insurance Company, funded by FEMA, sought a declaration that defendant London Insurers owed a duty to defend. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein granted WTC Captive's motion for partial summary judgment, ruling that the London Insurers have an ongoing duty to defend the City and its contractors. The court found that the pollution exclusion clause in the London Insurers' policies did not excuse this duty, as the underlying claims were based on negligent workplace safety rather than direct pollution causation. Additionally, the London Insurers' defense of inadequate notice was rejected, as timely notice was deemed to have been provided.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendPollution ExclusionWorld Trade Center Litigation9/11 Clean-upExcess Insurance PolicyWorkplace Safety NegligenceDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment RulingNotice of Claims
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1999

Rosen v. New York Zoological Society

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision. The case involved a plaintiff, a volunteer worker, who was injured while navigating a steep, muddy riverbank. The plaintiff argued that the injury resulted from a latent or concealed condition, breaching the defendant's duty. However, the appellate court found that such natural terrain with foreseeable uneven spots does not engender a duty on the part of the defendant. It held that a landowner owes no duty to warn of or prevent danger from plainly and obviously dangerous natural conditions, thereby granting the defendant's motion and dismissing the complaint.

Summary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLandowner DutyNatural ConditionsObvious DangerVolunteer InjuryRiverbank IncidentAppellate ReversalDismissal of ComplaintBronx County
References
7
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. 01-24-00702-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2025

Venable's Construction, Inc v. Aspen Midstream, LLC

Venable’s Construction, Inc. (Venable’s) sued Aspen Midstream, LLC (Aspen) over a construction contract for a 56-mile pipeline. Venable’s claimed an additional $1.77 million for “Extra Work” beyond the $39 million lump sum price, arguing additional footages and bores were required due to route changes. Aspen denied owing extra compensation and counterclaimed for a declaration that Venable’s had a contractual duty to defend an Aspen affiliate in a separate lawsuit by Waller County landowners. The trial court sided with Aspen on both the pricing dispute and the duty to defend. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision on the lump sum price, concluding Venable's performed "Work" not "Extra Work" under the contract. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's declaration regarding the duty to defend, finding no live dispute because Aspen had opted to provide its own defense and reserved indemnification for later. The case was remanded for reconsideration of attorney's fees.

Construction ContractLump Sum PriceExtra WorkQuantum MeruitPromissory EstoppelDuty to DefendIndemnification ClauseDeclaratory Judgment ActPipeline ConstructionRisk Allocation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,178 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