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

Sharpe v. Safway Scaffolds Co. of Houston

Charles Michael Sharpe, an apprentice electrician, was injured when the movable scaffolding he was working on overturned. He sued Safway Scaffolds Company of Houston, Inc. (lessor) and Fairbanks Company (wheel manufacturer). Fairbanks and the scaffolding manufacturer (Saf-way Steel Products) settled before trial. The jury found that the scaffolding was not defective, that Sharpe's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident, and awarded "0" damages. Sharpe appealed, arguing legal and factual insufficiency of evidence regarding the scaffolding's defectiveness and warnings, improper cross-examination, improper special issue submission, and failure to grant a mistrial due to jury conduct. The appellate court reviewed the evidence, finding conflicting testimony created fact issues for the jury, and upheld the jury's findings on negligence and lack of damages, bound by precedent. The court affirmed the lower court's judgment.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentNegligenceProduct LiabilityLegal SufficiencyFactual SufficiencyDirected VerdictJury MisconductProximate CauseExpert Testimony
References
19
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00748 [136 AD3d 423]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2016

DaSilva v. Everest Scaffolding, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Carlos DaSilva was granted partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Structural Preservation Systems, LLC (SPS) and Archstone entities, after falling from scaffolding that moved. The court found his accident was proximately caused by a Labor Law violation and rejected the recalcitrant worker defense due to lack of evidence he knew he was expected to use a ladder. Defendant Everest Scaffolding, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing a contractual indemnification cross-claim was granted. However, SPS and Archstone's motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims was denied, as triable issues of fact existed regarding SPS's supervisory control and constructive notice. The Appellate Division affirmed these lower court orders.

Scaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSupervisory ControlConstructive NoticeThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1978

Waters v. Patent Scaffold Co.

This personal injury action arises from Charles Waters' fall from a scaffolding I-beam in 1970, allegedly unbolted by a co-worker. Waters was employed by I. Rosen & Sons, Inc., a masonry subcontractor. The defendants included the general contractor-owner and Patent Scaffold Co., which leased and initially installed the scaffolding. The court determined that Patent Scaffold Co. was an independent supplier, not a contractor, and thus not liable under Labor Law § 240, nor for common-law negligence or strict liability, as the alleged duties devolved upon the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order partially granting summary judgment to Patent Scaffold Co. was modified to grant summary judgment on all causes of action, and as modified, affirmed.

Personal InjuryScaffolding AccidentLabor Law § 240Summary JudgmentContractor LiabilityLessor LiabilitySubcontractor ResponsibilityConstruction Site SafetyDuty to SuperviseStrict Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers Insurance v. General Accident, Fire & Life Assurance Corp.

Employers Insurance of Wausau (Wausau) sought summary judgment for 50% reimbursement of a $500,000 settlement and defense costs. The settlement stemmed from an underlying personal injury action where Frank Rayno, an employee of Sage Garage, was injured on a construction site in 1976. Wausau provided workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance to Sage Garage, while General Accident provided general liability coverage. Wausau paid the full settlement and then pursued General Accident for contribution. General Accident argued for a pro rata contribution based on policy limits. The court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, ruling that both insurers should contribute equally up to the limit of the smaller policy, which was General Accident's $500,000 policy, meaning General Accident owed $250,000. The defendants' cross-motion was denied.

Insurance disputeSummary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentContribution among insurersReimbursementPolicy limitsEmployer's liability insuranceGeneral liability insuranceWorkers' compensationPro rata contribution
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Morales v. Spring Scaffolding, Inc.

A construction worker, injured during his lunch break when a negligently constructed sidewalk bridge collapsed, brought suit under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The central legal question addressed was whether Labor Law § 240 (1), known as the "scaffold law," applies to injuries sustained during a lunch break. The Court found that the statute does apply, as the sidewalk bridge was an integral part of the work site and the accident was due to its improper construction, not solely the worker's conduct. The decision held the building owners liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims against Spring Scaffolding, Inc., the erector of the bridge, concluding it was not an owner, contractor, or statutory agent at the time of the accident, but affirmed that Spring could face liability under common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 due to faulty construction.

Labor Law 240(1)Scaffold LawConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryLunch BreakSidewalk BridgeParapet Wall CollapseNegligent ConstructionOwner LiabilityContractor Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Home Life & Accident Co. v. Wade

This case involves an appeal by the Home Life & Accident Company from an award of the Industrial Accident Board in favor of C. Wade. Wade, an an employee of A. C. MacParlane, sustained injuries while loading steel cranes onto a barge in the navigable Sabine River. The central legal question was whether Wade's maritime injury fell under the Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law or the exclusive admiralty jurisdiction of federal courts. The trial court initially awarded compensation to Wade under state law. However, the appellate court, citing various U.S. Supreme Court precedents and an Attorney General's opinion, concluded that maritime injuries are subject to federal admiralty law, thus precluding state workers' compensation jurisdiction. Consequently, the trial court's judgment was reversed, and the appellate court ruled in favor of the Home Life & Accident Company.

Admiralty lawMaritime jurisdictionWorkers' compensationFederal preemptionState lawInjury at workNavigable watersLongshoremanSabine RiverEmployer liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keefe v. General Accident Insurance

Plaintiff Violet O'Keefe initiated an action against General Accident Insurance Company, alleging disparate treatment and retaliation based on age and sex, violating Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. O'Keefe claimed a discriminatory work environment and unlawful termination following her refusal of a proposed job transfer. The defendant argued O'Keefe's performance was poor and the transfer was a lateral move. The District Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding the federal discrimination and retaliation claims, finding a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether General Accident's reasons for termination were pretextual. However, the Court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the state law claims, declining to exercise pendent jurisdiction.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIIADEARetaliationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie Case
References
19
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08009
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

Giannas v. 100 3rd Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ioannis Giannas, allegedly sustained personal injuries while working on a renovation project, claiming he fell from a scaffold that shifted. He sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against 100 3rd Avenue Corp. and JF Contracting Corp., and granted JF's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. The Supreme Court also denied Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.'s motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim against it and its contractual indemnification cross-claim against JF. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that JF lacked the requisite supervisory control for Labor Law liability. The court further affirmed the denial of Rockledge's motions due to a triable issue of fact concerning negligent scaffold installation, which precluded summary judgment on both the common-law negligence claim and the contractual indemnification cross-claim.

scaffolding accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)common-law negligencecontractual indemnificationconstruction manager liabilitysummary judgmenttriable issue of factagencysupervisory control
References
13
Case No. 13-21-00361-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2023

Accident Fund General Insurance Company v. Rodrigo Mendiola

Rodrigo Mendiola, a truck driver, suffered severe burns in an accident, leading to an above-the-knee amputation and significant injury to his left hand. His employer's workers' compensation insurer, Accident Fund General Insurance Company, disputed his claim for lifetime income benefits based on the total loss of use of his left hand. The trial court, applying the Travelers Insurance Co. v. Seabolt standard, found sufficient evidence that Mendiola's hand lacked substantial utility, entitling him to benefits. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, upholding the application of the Seabolt standard and concluding the evidence factually supported the finding of total loss of use.

Workers' CompensationLifetime Income BenefitsTotal Loss of UseBurn InjuriesHand InjuryAmputationMedical EvidenceFactual SufficiencyAppellate ReviewStare Decisis
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cassidy v. Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc.

A laborer, referred to as the plaintiff, sustained neck and back injuries after falling from a temporary loading dock when its safety railing detached. The incident occurred at a construction site owned by Midtown West A.L.L.C. and general contracted by Rockrose GC MWA L.L.C., with the loading dock installed by Highrise Hoisting & Scaffolding, Inc. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) claims, holding the owner and general contractor liable for the failure of the elevated platform designed to protect from gravity-related hazards. However, the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law § 241 (6), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence were dismissed due to the loading dock being classified as a platform, not a scaffold, and a lack of evidence regarding notice of an improperly reattached rail. The appellate court affirmed these rulings, also declining to consider a new argument raised by the defendants on appeal.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElevated PlatformSafety RailGravity-Related HazardIndustrial Code § 23-1.22(c)(2)NegligenceSite Safety Expert
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 4,040 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