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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01567
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2019

Ferdinand v. Salino

The plaintiffs, Susan and David Ferdinand, initiated an action against their neighbors, Gary and Karen Salino, alleging defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and private nuisance, also seeking a permanent injunction. The dispute arose after the Ferdinands began renovating their property, and the Salinos allegedly posted misleading signs, made disingenuous complaints, harassed invitees, and prevented utility access. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from various acts, including placing signs on the plaintiffs' property, harassment, blocking the driveway, insulting invitees, and videotaping. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court affirmed the injunction against blocking the driveway and harassing invitees but found parts of it overly broad, specifically denying the injunction against placing signs on the plaintiffs' property (due to lack of evidence), videotaping, and general actions to chill economic value.

DefamationPreliminary InjunctionPrivate NuisanceProperty DisputeHarassmentFirst Amendment RightsOverly Broad OrderAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureReal Property Law
References
8
Case No. 08-09-00057-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2010

Edmund Forester v. El Paso Electric Company

Edmund Forester appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of El Paso Electric Company (EPEC) on a premises liability claim. Forester sustained injuries after falling through an EPEC utility platform cover while attempting to cross a median on foot. He sued EPEC, asserting they owed him a duty as an invitee. EPEC countered that Forester was a trespasser or licensee and that they lacked actual knowledge of any dangerous condition. The trial court sided with EPEC, ruling Forester was a licensee and granting a take-nothing judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that Forester failed to present sufficient evidence to establish invitee status or to support his claim of gross negligence against EPEC.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentLicensee statusInvitee statusGross negligenceUtility platformEl Paso Court of AppealsAppellate reviewMutual benefitExtreme risk
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burkett v. Welborn

Kenneth Burkett and his wife, Betty, sued Rosalie Welborn and Leslie Welborn for negligence and premises liability after Kenneth was injured while salvaging a trailer. Burkett, an employee of Electro-Motor, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits but argued his injury was outside the scope of employment and Rosalie Welborn owed him a duty as an invitee. The trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants, citing workers' compensation exclusivity. On appeal, the court affirmed summary judgment on the negligence claims, finding Burkett was within the scope of employment. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on the premises liability issue against Rosalie Welborn, determining that her co-employee status did not negate her potential liability as a landowner to an invitee, and factual disputes existed regarding premises defects.

NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDual Capacity DoctrineInvitee StatusCo-employee ImmunityTexas Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Olivier v. Snowden

William Snowden, an employee of a general contractor, sued O. V. Olivier, a subcontractor, for personal injuries sustained from a fall off Olivier's scaffold on a construction site. Snowden argued he was an invitee due to a custom of mutual scaffold use and Olivier's alleged negligence in using a one-inch-thick board. The Texas Employers Insurance Association intervened, seeking subrogation for workers' compensation benefits paid. The Texas Supreme Court analyzed Snowden's legal status on the scaffold, concluding he was a licensee, not an invitee, because his use did not provide a mutual benefit or pecuniary advantage to Olivier. Therefore, Olivier only owed a duty to abstain from intentional or willful injury, not ordinary negligence, leading the Supreme Court to reverse the lower courts' judgments and deny recovery to Snowden and the intervenor.

premises liabilitylicensee statusinvitee statussubcontractor liabilityscaffold accidentconstruction site injurymutual benefit testordinary negligencegross negligenceassumption of risk
References
17
Case No. 14-05-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2006

John Johnson and Sherilyn Johnson and One Beacon Insurance Inc v. Texas Genco L.P, Incorrectly Named as Reliant Energy Inc.

This appeal concerns the granting of a no-evidence summary judgment against the appellants, John and Sherilyn Johnson, in a premises liability case. John Johnson sustained injuries from a fall caused by a concealed hole on the defendant's, Texas Genco, L.P.'s, premises while working as an invitee. The Johnsons, along with One Beacon Insurance, Inc., argued that Texas Genco had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The appellate court found that the Johnsons provided sufficient summary judgment evidence to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding the defendant's constructive notice. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

premises liabilitysummary judgmentconstructive noticeinviteedangerous conditionnegligenceTexas lawfall injuryemployer liabilityappellate review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaggars v. Aetna Insurance Co.

The complainant, James E. Jaggars, was injured in a dump truck accident while riding with his employer, Joe Gibbs. Jaggars had previously recovered a $5,000 judgment against Gibbs. Aetna Insurance Company, Gibbs' liability insurer, refused to pay the judgment, contending Jaggars was an employee and thus excluded from coverage under the policy. The Chancellor found Jaggars was not an employee but an invitee at the time of the accident. The appellate court reviewed this finding, considering precedents like Overstreet v. Norman and Vaughn v. Standard Surety and Casualty Co., and ultimately reversed the Chancellor's decision, ruling that Jaggars remained an employee at the time of the accident, making the employee exclusion applicable. The complainant's bill was dismissed.

Employee exclusionLiability insuranceScope of employmentInvitee statusWorkers' Compensation LawAutomobile accidentJudgment reversalInsurance coverage disputeMaster-servant relationshipAppellate review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. ArcelorMittal Vinton, Inc.

This case involves a premises liability dispute where Carla Wallace, a security guard, sued ArelorMittal Vinton, Inc. (AMV), a steel mill owner, after sustaining injuries from a fall on AMV's property. Wallace, employed by Merchant Security, was aware of the poorly lit conditions and the presence of scattered metal objects, including a 'billet', in the area where she fell. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of AMV, asserting that Wallace's awareness of the hazard negated AMV's duty to make the premises safe or warn her. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, concluding that a premises owner generally owes no duty to warn an invitee of known or obvious dangers, and Wallace failed to establish any exception to this rule.

premises liabilityknown hazardinviteeduty of landownersummary judgmentTexas lawcontributory negligenceopen and obvious dangerappellate reviewemployer liability
References
28
Case No. 04-18-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2018

Richard Arce v. Ken McGough and Jan McGough D/B/A K&M Auto Sales

Richard Arce appealed a summary judgment ruling in favor of Ken McGough and Jan McGough d/b/a K&M Auto Sales after a tree branch fell on him at K&M's business. Arce sued for injuries, initially alleging premises liability and then amending his petition to focus on employer's negligence. K&M filed traditional and no-evidence motions for summary judgment, arguing Arce was an invitee and had no evidence to support premises liability. The appellate court determined that Arce's claim, despite being styled as negligence, fundamentally arose from a premises defect. Because Arce failed to present any evidence in response to K&M's no-evidence summary judgment motion, the trial court's decision to grant summary judgment was affirmed.

Summary judgmentPremises liabilityEmployer's negligenceContract workerInviteesDuty of careNo-evidence motionAppellate reviewFalling tree branchProperty condition
References
7
Case No. 09-01-472 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2002

Clay Fletcher v. Sawyer Crystal Systems, Inc.

The case involves Clay Fletcher suing Sawyer Crystal Systems, Inc. for injuries sustained while working on their premises. Fletcher, an employee of Express Personal Services, claimed he was an invitee of Sawyer. Sawyer moved for summary judgment, arguing Fletcher was a "borrowed servant" and his exclusive remedy was workers' compensation. The trial court granted summary judgment for Sawyer. Fletcher appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact precluded a determination as a matter of law that he was the borrowed servant of Sawyer. The Court of Appeals found Fletcher's affidavit raised a genuine issue of material fact concerning the specific direction and control by either the loaning employer (Express) or the borrowing employer (Sawyer). Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court was reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.

Borrowed servant doctrinesummary judgmentworkers' compensationright of controlemployer-employee relationshippremises liabilitygenuine issue of material factTexas Court of Appealstort lawvicarious liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oliver v. Marsh

Charles R. Oliver appealed a judgment awarding Michael D. Marsh $180,362.00 for injuries sustained when he fell from a storage shed owned by Oliver. Marsh, an employee of Oliver's company, Travel Quest, Inc., was working on Oliver's farm to dismantle the shed when a rotten ridge pole broke, causing him severe injuries. Oliver challenged the legal and factual sufficiency of the jury's findings regarding a latent defect and Oliver's negligence, and also complained about the court's refusal to submit requested special questions on independent contractor, possessor of land, and business invitee status. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings and concluding that the requested special questions were either not in substantially correct form or pertained to uncontroverted facts.

NegligenceLatent DefectPremises LiabilityIndependent Contractor StatusBusiness Invitee StatusWorkers' Compensation DefenseJury FindingsLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate Review
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 13 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