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

Cummins v. Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co.

Earl D. Cummins appealed an instructed verdict favoring Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Company, Inc., and Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc. Cummins, a derrickman, was injured when a stabbing board broke while he was working. He sued the appellees, alleging negligence. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Cummins had voluntarily encountered a known danger, thus applying the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria. Furthermore, the court found insufficient evidence to support the negligence claims against Sherman’s Power Tongs, Inc.

Instructed VerdictNegligenceVolenti Non Fit InjuriaAssumption of RiskOilfield InjuryDerrickmanIndependent ContractorsWorkers' CompensationTexas LawPremises Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tyler v. McDaniel

Glenn A. Tyler sued C. A. McDaniel and L. A. Beecherl for personal injury after being severely burned by an uninsulated electric wire while working on an oil well lease. The Standard Insurance Company intervened to recover sums paid under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants, and Tyler appealed. The appellate court affirmed, concluding that Tyler was aware of the dangerous electrical lines and appreciated the associated risks, thereby triggering the *volenti non fit injuria* doctrine. Additionally, the court found that any duty to warn Tyler was discharged as his employer had full knowledge of the hazards.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentOil and Gas LeaseElectrical AccidentDuty to WarnIndependent ContractorVolenti Non Fit InjuriaPremises LiabilityWorkers' CompensationAssumption of Risk
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnston Testers v. Rangel

Jose Rangel, an employee of Sam Howell Drilling Company, filed a third-party action against Johnston Testers for injuries sustained during an oil well testing operation. Rangel was struck by a falling pipe section called a 'sub' that became unscrewed. The jury awarded Rangel $74,598.00 for damages, including diminished earning capacity and medical expenses. Johnston Testers appealed, alleging trial court errors regarding special issues on sole proximate cause, evidence sufficiency for defendant's employee negligence, and defenses of borrowed servant and volenti non fit injuria. The appellate court found no reversible error and affirmed the trial court's judgment.

oil field injurynegligencethird-party actionworkers' compensationproximate causeborrowed servantvolenti non fit injuriajury instructionsappellate reviewpersonal injury
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cactus Drilling Company v. Williams

The plaintiff, Ruller D. Williams, an employee of Byron-Jackson, Inc., was injured when a pipe fell on his hand during an oil well cementing operation in Yoakum County, Texas. Williams secured a favorable jury verdict against Cactus Drilling Company, alleging negligence by a Cactus employee in improperly connecting a catline to the pipe. The appellate court, however, vacated the judgment, finding a defective submission of essential elements in the jury's special issue, which either assumed a controverted fact or led to an ambiguous verdict regarding the identity of the negligent employee and the improper connection. The court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings. It also addressed and rejected Cactus's defenses of "open and obvious danger" and volenti non fit injuria, and discussed the inapplicability of the fellow servant rule.

Personal InjuryNegligenceOil Rig AccidentDefective Jury SubmissionReversed and RemandedContributory NegligenceVolenti Non Fit InjuriaFellow Servant RuleIndependent ContractorJury Verdict Ambiguity
References
23
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SAN ANTONIO PORTLAND CEMENT COMPANY v. Chandler

Howard Chandler sued San Antonio Portland Cement Company for personal injuries sustained on August 28, 1958, after being struck by a crane while working as an iron worker at the company's plant. The trial court awarded Chandler $12,500 based on jury findings that the Cement Company was negligent in not knowing Chandler was on the crane rail, failing to provide a warning light, and not notifying him that the new crane was in operation. The Cement Company appealed, arguing doctrines of volenti non fit injuria and assumed risk, and that Chandler was contributorily negligent. The appellate court found the trial court erred by not submitting the Cement Company's requested issues concerning Chandler's failure to notify the crane operator. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded the case for a new trial.

Personal injuryWorkplace accidentCrane accidentNegligenceContributory negligenceAssumed riskVolenti non fit injuriaIndependent contractorWarning dutyPremises liability
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00103 [212 AD3d 644]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2023

Pecora v. Fitness Intl., LLC

Michael Pecora appealed from an order granting summary judgment to Fitness International, LLC, in a personal injury action. Pecora alleged he contracted infections, including MRSA, from using a sauna at the defendant's health club. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the defendants demonstrated the plaintiff could not prove the pathogen originated at their facility, noting MRSA's common transmission, regular cleaning, and lack of prior complaints. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMRSAHealth ClubProximate CauseSpeculationDangerous ConditionInfectious DiseaseAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. Bally Total Fitness

Kathryn Brennan filed a civil rights action against her former employer, Bally Total Fitness Corp., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and disability discrimination under the ADA. Bally moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely and to compel arbitration based on its Employee Dispute Resolution Procedure (EDRP). The court denied Bally's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, applying the 'continuing-violation exception' due to Brennan's allegations of ongoing harassment. The court also denied Bally's motion to compel arbitration, finding Bally's unilateral modifications to the EDRP invalid and raising questions of unconscionability regarding the original EDRP. The case is remanded for jurisdictional discovery and a possible hearing to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Civil RightsSexual HarassmentDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Motion to DismissMotion to Compel ArbitrationContinuing Violation Exception
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Agostino v. LA Fitness International, LLC

Maria D’Agostino (Plaintiff) sued LA Fitness and several related entities and an individual (Defendants) for age and gender discrimination, and retaliation, under the New York State Human Rights Law, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Plaintiff, a Training General Manager, alleged discriminatory remarks by her supervisor Michael Sharp and preferential treatment for younger male counterparts. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff was demoted due to poor sales performance and staffing issues, not discrimination. The court granted Defendants' motion, finding Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for her demotion were pretextual, and also failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation or a hostile work environment.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextSales PerformanceEmployee Demotion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 3,750 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