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
Jan 24, 1994

Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs Dorothy J. and Louis Kowalski, Jr. sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for negligence and strict liability, alleging Mrs. Kowalski contracted bladder cancer from ortho-toluidine exposure via her husband's work clothes from Goodyear's Niagara Falls plant. Goodyear sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred, the strict liability claim was undefined, and no duty was owed to Mrs. Kowalski. The court denied Goodyear's motions, ruling that the federally required commencement date under CERCLA preempted the state statute of limitations. The court also found that plaintiffs adequately alleged Goodyear owed a duty of care due to the foreseeable harm from secondary exposure to a known dangerous substance, and that the strict liability claim required further evidence.

negligencestrict liabilitystatute of limitationsCERCLASARAhazardous substancestoxic exposurebladder canceroccupational diseasesecondary exposure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dawn Joy Fashions, Inc. v. Commissioner of Labor

This case addresses the proof required to establish a violation of Labor Law § 352 (1) concerning unauthorized industrial homework. Dawn Joy Fashions, a garment manufacturer, was accused by the Commissioner of Labor of causing materials to be delivered for such homework, incurring civil penalties. The Industrial Board of Appeals upheld the penalties, applying a rebuttable strict liability standard. However, the Appellate Division overturned this, concluding the statute requires intent or acquiescence from the manufacturer. This Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the Board's strict liability interpretation was not supported by the statutory language and that substantial evidence was lacking to prove Dawn Joy Fashions intended or knew its materials would be used for industrial homework. The Court also noted that while the suggested 'minimum steps' could be relevant factors, they cannot be imposed as preconditions without proper rule-making.

Industrial HomeworkLabor Law ComplianceRebuttable Strict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationManufacturer LiabilityAppellate ReviewCivil PenaltiesEmployer ResponsibilityGarment IndustryProof of Intent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Momentive Performance Materials USA, Inc. v. Astrocosmos Metallurgical, Inc.

Plaintiff MPM Silicones, LLC (assignee of GE) sued Defendant AstroCosmos Metallurgical Inc. for various claims concerning a defective tantalum-lined weak acid reactor, including breach of a 1999 Purchase Agreement and a 2005 Replacement Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, strict products liability, and breaches of implied and express warranties. AstroCosmos moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The court granted dismissal for most claims due to statute of limitations, including the breach of the Purchase Agreement, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, and breaches of implied and express warranties. However, the court denied dismissal for the breach of the Replacement Agreement claim and partially denied dismissal for the strict products liability claim regarding property damage after May 25, 2004, allowing these claims to proceed.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationProfessional NegligenceEngineering MalpracticeStrict Products LiabilityImplied WarrantiesExpress WarrantiesStatute of LimitationsEquitable Estoppel
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bauer v. Female Academy of the Sacred Heart

This case concerns Keith Bauer, a window cleaner, who was severely injured after falling from a third-story window while working for Environmental Service Systems at the Female Academy of the Sacred Heart. The accident occurred due to a safety hook becoming stuck on a square anchor, which violated Industrial Code standards. The primary legal issues were whether claims under Labor Law § 202 and Labor Law § 240 (1) could coexist, and if Labor Law § 202 imposed strict liability or comparative negligence. The Court of Appeals held that both Labor Law claims can be pursued simultaneously and determined that Labor Law § 202 is a comparative negligence statute, not a strict liability one. The court modified previous rulings by reinstating the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim for further proceedings, while affirming the comparative negligence approach for the Labor Law § 202 claim.

Window Cleaner InjuryLabor LawStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceSafety AnchorsIndustrial Code ViolationConstruction SafetyThird-Party ActionStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1996

Del Vecchio v. State

The claimants, Salvatore and Karen Del Vecchio, appealed an order from the Court of Claims which denied their motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing that claim. Salvatore Del Vecchio was injured while rescuing a co-worker who fell into Jamaica Bay during bridge construction, arguing his back injuries were a result of the incident caused by unsecured planking and lack of safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Labor Law § 240 (1) provides "exceptional protection" for specific gravity-related accidents (falling from height, struck by falling object) and does not extend to a rescuer like Del Vecchio, who did not sustain a direct gravity-related injury. The majority concluded that the "danger invites rescue" doctrine is not applicable to Labor Law § 240 (1) claims due to the statute's absolute liability and limited scope, which should not be expanded. A dissenting opinion argued that the doctrine should apply to workers injured while rescuing someone imperiled by a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation, emphasizing the statute's purpose of protecting workers and imposing strict liability.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Danger Invites Rescue DoctrineAbsolute LiabilityGravity-Related InjurySummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1988

Drew v. Correct Manufacturing Corp.

Plaintiff was injured when a skyworker or bucket hoist collapsed while he was performing elevated work for his employer at property owned by defendant Rockwell International Corporation. Plaintiff's complaint included a cause of action based upon Labor Law § 240 (1), and he moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under this statute. The court found that a skyworker, although not specifically listed, is functionally similar to devices covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The collapse of the safety device established a prima facie statutory violation and proximate cause, shifting the burden to the defendant. The court determined that a design or manufacturing defect causing a safety device to collapse results in absolute liability for the owner. Therefore, the Supreme Court's order was modified, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) was granted and, as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawAbsolute LiabilitySkyworker CollapseSafety Device FailureProximate CauseSummary JudgmentDesign DefectManufacturing DefectElevated Work
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Plaintiff Mario Miguel Jaramillo sustained serious injuries while operating an industrial Flexo Folder Gluer machine. The machine was purchased used by his employer, Universal Glenwood Packaging Products Corporation, from Weyerhaeuser Company. Jaramillo filed a strict products liability claim against Weyerhaeuser, alleging the machine was defective due to the lack of safety devices. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals, was whether Weyerhaeuser, as a seller of used equipment, qualified as a 'regular seller' subject to strict liability under New York law. Reviewing prior precedents like Sukljian v Ross & Son Co. and Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, the court analyzed the policy considerations behind imposing strict liability. The court concluded that Weyerhaeuser's incidental sales of used, third-hand equipment as surplus did not meet the criteria for a 'regular seller' and would not serve the public policy goals of strict products liability, answering the certified question in the negative.

Strict Products LiabilityCasual Seller DoctrineOrdinary Seller DoctrineUsed Goods LiabilityCertified QuestionNew York LawIndustrial Machinery AccidentWorkplace InjuryCorporate Surplus SalesProduct Defect
References
10
Case No. CV-22-2011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Sukhwinder Singh

Claimant Sukhwinder Singh was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found NLF's cancellation effective, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling NLF failed to prove proper cancellation and was the liable carrier. NLF appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the requirement for strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding policy cancellation notice and deferring to the Board's credibility determinations.

Policy CancellationInsurance LiabilityNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 5,511 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