-
659 So. 2d 707·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1995-08-28
·cited 30×
Matthew White was injured when his motorcycle collided with a horse on U.S. Highway 301. A Waldo police officer, acting at the sheriff's request, was attempting to capture the loose horse when his actions allegedly created the hazard that caused White's accident. The court revers
-
646 F.2d 1178·
6th Cir.·
1981-05-01
·cited 28×
The court held that the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) could be liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligent inspection and supervision of construction, distinguishing this from claims arising out of misrepresentation.
-
355 F.2d 814·
4th Cir.·
1966-01-13
·cited 26×
The court held that the manufacturer is liable for injuries caused by a breach of express warranty, even if the user did not have direct knowledge of the warranty, and that the jury was correctly instructed on proximate cause.
-
599 F.2d 558·
3d Cir.·
1979-05-30
·cited 20×
The FDIC owed no duty to warn a bank of its president's criminal conduct discovered during a supervisory examination, as the FDIC's role is to protect the insurance fund, not the bank itself.
-
780 So. 2d 930·
Fla. 5th DCA·
2001-02-09
·cited 14×
Alyce Sanderson appealed the dismissal of her negligence claim against Eckerd Corporation based on the voluntary undertaking doctrine, alleging the pharmacy failed to warn of adverse drug interactions that caused her husband's death. The court reversed, holding that the voluntary
-
795 F.2d 434·
5th Cir.·
1986-07-25
·cited 12×
The court held that the district court did not err in instructing the jury on sole cause, nor in refusing to instruct on inherently dangerous activities or implied duties, affirming the jury verdict for the defendant.
-
228 F.2d 679·
2d Cir.·
1956-01-05
·cited 12×
The court held that a shipowner is not liable for a fellow seaman's negligent assistance to an intoxicated shipmate unless the assistance was authorized or customary.
-
661 F.2d 552·
6th Cir.·
1981-10-09
·cited 11×
The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) does not incorporate state law distinctions regarding municipal liability, and thus the United States cannot claim immunity based on a state's public-private duty distinction when sued under the FTCA. The court reversed the d
-
111 So. 3d 901·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2013-02-06
·cited 9×
Parents of a high school soccer player who suffered severe brain damage after cardiac arrest sued the school board for negligence, alleging it failed to provide or use an automated external defibrillator (AED). The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the school board, h
-
825 F.2d 1440·
10th Cir.·
1987-08-06
·cited 8×
The court held that the Kansas Recreational Use Statute requires a willful or malicious intent to cause harm, not merely reckless disregard, to overcome its liability protections, and that common-law duties under Restatement sections 323 and 324A do not override the RUS in this c
-
612 So. 2d 586·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1992-12-15
·cited 6×
The estate of Diana McFarland sued the City of Jacksonville and the State Attorney's Office after McFarland was killed by James Wilson, whom she had reported to authorities. The court held that while the police owed no duty of care, the State Attorney's Office created a duty by v
-
78 F.4th 1365·
11th Cir.·
2023-08-18
·cited 5×
The court held that the air traffic controllers did not owe a duty to monitor airspace outside their jurisdiction or to use radar, and their actions did not constitute negligence proximately causing the collision.
-
438 So. 2d 490·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1983-09-28
·cited 4×
This case examines whether a municipality is protected by sovereign immunity for a building inspector's negligence in approving non-compliant construction plans and inspections. The court held that such actions are operational, not discretionary, and thus not protected by immunit
-
419 So. 2d 405·
Fla. 2d DCA·
1982-09-17
·cited 4×
An employer is subject to liability for torts resulting from an agent's misrepresentations within their apparent authority, upon which an employee relies to their detriment.
-
946 F.2d 544·
7th Cir.·
1991-10-24
·cited 2×
The court held that the victim's estate could not bring a federal due process claim under § 1983 because the state did not create the danger or hold the victim in custody, and that a state law negligence claim against the deputy presented a material issue of fact regarding breach
-
939 F.2d 280·
5th Cir.·
1991-08-20
·cited 2×
The court held that a directed verdict for the defendant was appropriate on all claims because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence of causation for the DTPA claim, lacked evidence of specific promises for the contract claim, and failed to show a duty of care for t
-
835 F.2d 1133·
5th Cir.·
1988-01-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the widow's claim against the United States for the Army's negligent processing of an insurance premium allotment form was not barred by the Federal Tort Claims Act's "interference with contract rights" exception.
-
576 F.2d 262·
10th Cir.·
1978-04-14
·cited 2×
The court held that the Railroad's active direction of the decedent onto an unsafe portion of the bridge, rather than merely allowing him to use the premises as a licensee, created a duty of care that precluded summary judgment.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2025-08-29
The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the breach of contract claim, finding no evidence of an express or implied contract regarding the cost of the surgery. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distr
-
Fla. 4th DCA·
2025-05-07
A municipality that undertakes to treat water for corrosiveness assumes a duty to exercise reasonable care in that undertaking, and may be held liable for negligence if it fails to do so, even absent a general statutory or common law duty to prevent pipe corrosion. An engineering
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2023-08-11
The court denied T-Mobile Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded that T-Mobile assumed a duty of care by implementing mandatory security training and that the prior criminal activity at the store made the robbery and resulting death foreseeabl
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2020-12-16
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for negligence against the animal shelter under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 315 and 323 because no special relationship existed and the shelter did not undertake services for the plaintiff's direct protection. However
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2005-10-05
The Delaware Superior Court granted summary judgment for Delaware State University (DSU), finding that while DSU was not protected by sovereign immunity or the State Tort Claims Act due to its corporate status and purchase of liability insurance, it was not liable for the plainti
-
931 F.2d 372·
6th Cir.·
1991-02-05
The court held that a district court's failure to consider a motion to amend a complaint before granting a motion to dismiss constitutes an abuse of discretion, requiring remand. However, a union does not owe employees a duty to provide a safe workplace absent specific contractua
-
923 F.2d 752·
9th Cir.·
1991-01-18
This court certified a question to the Arizona Supreme Court regarding potential liability for negligently failing to make a gratuitously offered loan.