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

Whitehead v. Dycho Co., Inc.

This products liability case involves Jo Ann Whitehead, who was severely injured in an explosion caused by naphtha, a chemical supplied by multiple defendants to her employer, Magnavox. Whitehead alleged strict liability, breach of warranty, and negligent failure to warn. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding Magnavox a "sophisticated user" and "learned intermediary," and that Whitehead's product use was unforeseeable. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. However, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, affirming the trial court's summary judgment, concluding that the defendants had adequately warned Magnavox, and Magnavox's failure to warn its employees constituted an independent intervening act that broke the causal connection. The Supreme Court found no proximate causation between the defendants' alleged failure to warn and Whitehead's injuries.

Products LiabilityFailure to WarnNaphtha ExplosionSophisticated User ExceptionLearned Intermediary DoctrineProximate CauseIntervening ActSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityChemical Hazards
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. E2013-02708-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2015

Danny Long v. Quad Power Products, LLC

Danny Long suffered a severe arm injury, leading to amputation, when a ball valve mechanism broke while he was pressure testing. He and his wife, Geraldine Long, filed a product liability complaint against four companies, alleging negligence and failure to warn. Mr. Long's employer, Alstom Power, Inc., joined as an intervening plaintiff. After Mr. Long's death, Ms. Long continued the suit. The case eventually narrowed to a strict liability claim against Southern Fluidpower, Inc., based on failure to warn about pressure capacity and corrosion in water systems. The trial court granted summary judgment for Southern Fluidpower, finding no genuine issue of material fact that Southern's alleged failure to warn caused Mr. Long's injury, attributing the cause in fact to Alstom's negligence in assembling and using a known faulty valve. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that Alstom's actions were an intervening cause.

Product LiabilityWorkplace InjuryAmputationFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCausation in FactIntervening CauseTennessee Products Liability ActBall Valve Failure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gelber v. Stryker Corp.

Jeanette Gelber and Hugh Gelber sued Stryker Corporation, Howmedica Osteonics, and Stryker Orthopedics, Inc., collectively 'Stryker,' for medical device liability concerning a defective Trident hip replacement system. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, breach of warranty, strict products liability, and loss of consortium, stemming from a defectively manufactured device and failures to warn or report issues. Defendants moved to dismiss based on federal preemption and failure to state a claim. District Judge P. Kevin Castel partially granted and partially denied the motion, allowing defective manufacturing claims (negligence and strict products liability) and certain express warranty claims to proceed. Other claims, including failure to warn, failure to report, and implied warranty, were dismissed due to preemption or statute of limitations.

Medical Device LiabilityProduct LiabilityFederal Preemption DoctrineMedical Device Amendments Act (MDA)Strict Products LiabilityNegligence ClaimsBreach of Express WarrantyDefective ManufacturingClass III Medical DeviceHip Prosthesis
References
41
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc.

Samuel Passante was injured while operating a dock leveler at his workplace, leading him and his wife to sue his employer, the manufacturer (Rite-Hite), and the seller (Mullen) for defective design and failure to warn. The Supreme Court denied Mullen's summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's order, modifying it to reinstate the claims for defective design and failure to warn. The court found triable issues of fact concerning whether the dock leveler was unreasonably dangerous without an optional trailer restraint system and the adequacy of existing warnings regarding its use.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentDock LevelerIndustrial AccidentOptional Safety FeatureRisk-Utility AssessmentIndustrial Equipment
References
4
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2008

Stalker v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

George R. Stalker died from a truck tire 'zipper rupture' while inflating it. His widow, the plaintiff, filed a products liability lawsuit against the tire manufacturer, Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company, and the retreader, Rua & Sons, Inc., alleging design defect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of a design defect and that the decedent, with over 20 years of experience, was already aware of the specific dangers and proper safety precautions related to tire inflation, thus negating the failure to warn claim.

Products LiabilityTire ExplosionZipper RuptureDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExperienced WorkerSafety PrecautionsExpert Witness Testimony
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02624 [227 AD3d 1516]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2024

Viglietta v. Asbestos Corp. Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal by Hedman Resources Limited against a judgment awarding damages to Terri Viglietta for injuries sustained by Benedict Viglietta due to asbestos exposure. The appeal contested the Supreme Court's decision to quash a subpoena served on Occidental Chemical Corporation (OCC), the decedent's employer's predecessor-in-interest. Hedman sought OCC's testimony regarding asbestos exposure but the subpoena was quashed as OCC was a non-party and Hedman could not apportion liability to it. Additionally, Hedman challenged the denial of a jury instruction that OCC's failure to warn employees could be an intervening cause. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that quashing the subpoena was a proper exercise of discretion and that the employer's alleged failure to warn did not constitute an intervening cause to relieve Hedman of negligence.

Asbestos ExposureSubpoenaQuash SubpoenaNonparty WitnessIntervening CauseNegligenceJury InstructionAppellate ReviewDamages AwardDiscovery Matters
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Argonaut Insurance v. Samsung Heavy Industries Co.

A fire occurred on January 1, 2010, at a garage owned by the Town of Dannemora Highway Department, involving a Samsung Loader. Unnamed insurance companies, subrogated to the Town, sued Volvo Construction Equipment (manufacturer of the Samsung Loader) for negligent design, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn. Both parties moved to exclude expert testimonies, which the court largely denied, stating issues raised pertain to weight, not admissibility. Defendants also sought summary judgment, which was granted for failure to warn and manufacturing defect claims (as plaintiffs withdrew them), but denied for design defect and negligence claims, allowing plaintiffs' expert to testify on alternative designs. The court emphasized the liberal standard for expert qualification and that disputes about credentials go to weight, not admissibility.

Expert TestimonyDaubert StandardProduct LiabilityDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentFire InvestigationNFPA 921SubrogationVolvo Construction Equipment
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 5,058 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