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

Kellar v. Inductotherm Corp.

Plaintiffs James D. Kellar, a foundry worker, and his wife, filed a products liability action against the manufacturer of a channel furnace. Kellar was injured when he was struck by scrap metal, became dazed, and fell into an unguarded pit surrounding the furnace at Vestal Manufacturing Company, his employer. The furnace was sold to Vestal in 1971, and Vestal installed it with platforms, creating the pit. Vestal also attached a rear deck from the defendant, which partially covered the pit when the furnace was horizontal. Plaintiffs argued the furnace was defective and unreasonably dangerous due to the lack of a guard for the pit and a failure to warn. The defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, arguing that the defect was in Vestal's installation, not their product, and that the danger was obvious. The court, applying Tennessee law, granted the defendant's motion, ruling that liability under Section 402A only applies if the manufacturer's product itself is defective and causes harm, and that the open pit was created by Vestal, not the defendant. Furthermore, the court found the danger of the unguarded pit was obvious to the plaintiff.

products liabilityfoundry accidentunguarded pitmanufacturing defectfailure to warnobvious dangerjudgment notwithstanding the verdictcomponent part liabilityemployer liabilityworker injury
References
13
Case No. No. 10-07-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2008

SSHG, LLC D/B/A Support Services Holdings Group and Legacy Support Services, LTD. v. Eric Ian Lewis

Eric Ian Lewis, an employee of SSHG, LLC, was injured on the job while using an electric hand planer. He sued his employer, a worker's compensation nonsubscriber, for negligence. A jury found for Lewis, and SSG appealed the judgment, arguing it had no duty to warn of obvious dangers and that Lewis's own negligence caused the injury. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the danger of using the planer on small pieces of wood without a jig was not obvious or commonly known to Lewis, thus SSG owed a duty to train and warn. The court also found the evidence legally sufficient to support the jury's negligence finding against SSG.

Workplace NegligenceEmployer LiabilityDuty to WarnSafe WorkplacePower Tool InjuryWorker's Compensation NonsubscriberProximate CauseContributory Negligence (defense denied)Jury Verdict AppealAppellate Court Decision
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Johnny's Pizza and Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc., from an order denying their motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped over a single-step riser on premises owned by Lincoln Plaza Associates and leased by Johnny's Pizza. The defendants contended the step was an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition. The Supreme Court initially denied their motions, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that they successfully established the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceSlip and FallAppellate ReviewLandowner DutyHazardous ConditionDuty to Warn
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Recchia v. A. G. Ship Maintenance

This case involves an appeal in a negligence action for personal injuries. The defendant, Ove Skou R/A, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Sante Recchia, sustained injuries after tripping on the vessel Birgitte Skou. The court examined the liability of a vessel owner under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, emphasizing that primary safety responsibility lies with the stevedore. A vessel owner is generally not liable for dangerous conditions developing during cargo operations unless they knew the stevedore would not correct an obvious danger or the longshoreman could not avoid it. Given that the cause of the fall was obvious and avoidable, the court reversed the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to Ove Skou R/A and dismissing the complaint and cross-claim against it. Triable issues of fact remain against the codefendant A. G. Ship Maintenance.

NegligencePersonal InjuryMaritime LawLongshoremenHarbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentVessel Owner LiabilityStevedore ResponsibilityDangerous ConditionsObvious Risk
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
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
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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1963

Halepeska v. Callihan Interests, Inc.

The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a wrongful death action brought by Natalie Halepeska and her children against Callihan Interests, Inc., following the death of Dennis L. Halepeska in a gas well blowout. The trial court initially ruled for the plaintiffs, but the Court of Civil Appeals reversed, applying the "no duty" and "volenti non fit injuria" doctrines based on a standard that Halepeska "should have known" the danger. The Supreme Court clarified that these doctrines require actual knowledge and appreciation of the danger, or that the danger be so open and obvious that knowledge is legally charged. Finding the lower courts erred in their application of the "should have known" standard and noting the jury found Halepeska lacked full knowledge and appreciation, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Civil Appeals' judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration of the evidentiary sufficiency.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceContributory NegligencePremises LiabilityVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumed RiskGas Well BlowoutIndependent ContractorBusiness InviteeTexas Law
References
37
Case No. 746 F.3d 191
Regular Panel Decision

Randy Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P.

The Texas Supreme Court addressed a certified question from the Fifth Circuit concerning an employee's ability to recover against a nonsubscribing employer for injuries sustained from a known premises defect that their job duties required them to remedy. The Court clarified that, generally, an employer's premises-liability duty does not obligate them to warn or protect employees from unreasonably dangerous conditions that are open and obvious or already known to the employee. This general rule applies even for nonsubscribing employers, despite the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act's (TWCA) waiver of defenses like contributory negligence and assumption of risk. However, two exceptions exist: dangers from foreseeable third-party criminal activity and situations where the employee must necessarily use the dangerous premises and cannot adequately mitigate the risk. In these exceptional cases, the employer retains a duty to make the premises safe, and the TWCA prevents them from using the employee's awareness of the risk as a defense. The Court also affirmed that a separate 'necessary-instrumentalities' claim, based on an employer's failure to provide safe equipment, is distinct from a premises-liability claim and does not require contemporaneous negligent activity.

Premises LiabilityEmployer DutyNonsubscribing EmployerTexas Workers' Compensation Act (TWCA)Open and Obvious HazardKnown DangerCertified QuestionNegligenceAssumption of RiskContributory Negligence
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 765 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