Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 324A

46 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Clay Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Johnson
  873 So. 2d 1182· Fla.· 2003-12-18 ·cited 207×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Clay Electric Cooperative owed a legally recognized duty of reasonable care to maintain streetlights it had contracted to maintain, even to third parties not in privity with the company. The court reversed summary judgment and applied the under
• Pollock v. Fla. Dep't OF Hwy. Patrol
  882 So. 2d 928· Fla.· 2004-06-10 ·cited 99×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Florida Highway Patrol (FHP) owed no duty of care to motorists killed when their vehicle struck an unlit, stalled tractor-trailer on the Palmetto Expressway, even though FHP failed to dispatch officers after receiving a 911 report of the ha
• Garrison Ret. Home Corp. v. Hancock
  484 So. 2d 1257· Fla. 4th DCA· 1985-10-02 ·cited 48×
  Garrison Retirement Home Corp. appealed orders granting summary judgment on liability to Kenneth and Jeanne Hancock, who were injured when a resident operated his car on the facility's premises. The court held that the retirement home owed a duty of reasonable care to the Hancock
• Davis v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  525 F.2d 1204· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-19 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the necessary elements for a cause of action for negligent inspection against the workers' compensation insurer, even though there was a genuine issue of fact regarding assumption of risk.
• The Est. OF Norma J. Johnson v. Badger Acquisition OF Tampa LLC
  983 So. 2d 1175· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-04-04 ·cited 31×
  The Estate of Norma J. Johnson appealed a summary judgment granted in favor of Omnicare, a pharmaceutical consulting company, arguing that Omnicare owed a legal duty of care to Mrs. Johnson as a nursing home resident. The Florida appellate court affirmed, holding that consultant
• Merlyn Weber v. Towner Cnty.
  565 F.2d 1001· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-10 ·cited 20×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because factual issues exist regarding whether the county, through its commissioner's actions and the board's subsequent acquiescence, incurred tort liability for failing to adequately warn of or repair a dangerous road
• Howell v. United States
  932 F.2d 915· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the FAA inspector's failure to take further action upon learning of contaminated fuel did not create liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act because no duty was owed to the decedents under Georgia's 'good Samaritan' doctrine.
• Escolastica DaSILVA v. Am. Brands, Inc.
  845 F.2d 356· 1st Cir.· 1988-04-21 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the jury's determination of liability and damages in a wrongful death action, and affirmed the dismissal of the cross-claim for contribution.
• Reynolds v. United States
  643 F.2d 707· 10th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the claim against the United States for negligent inspection of a residence by the FmHA falls under the "misrepresentation" exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act and is therefore barred.
• Alyce M. Sanderson v. Eckerd Corp.
  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
• Cook v. Branick MFG., Inc.
  736 F.2d 1442· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-19 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that Bandag discharged its duty to warn by notifying the employer of the dangerous condition, and Branick did not undertake a duty to retrofit its rims with warnings.
• Schindler v. United States
  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
• George E. McGOWAN and wife Maxine McGowan v. Cooper Indus., Inc.
  863 F.2d 1266· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Section 324A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts does not impose extra-contractual duties on a party beyond the scope of its contract, and excluded testimony improperly offering legal conclusions or opinions on ultimate issues.
• Deines v. Vermeer Mfg. Co.
  969 F.2d 977· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-21 ·cited 8×
  The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment because the appellant failed to provide a sufficient record on appeal, making review of its contentions impossible.
• Klepper v. City OF Milford
  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
• Bussey v. The Travelers Ins. Co.
  643 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1981-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the employer's compliance with safety recommendations, without neglecting its own safety program, does not constitute the type of reliance required under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(c) for an insurer to be liable for negligent inspection.
• Brown v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  690 So. 2d 641· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-03-10 ·cited 7×
  Parents of children abused at a licensed day-care facility sued the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) for negligence, alleging HRS failed to monitor compliance with permit conditions prohibiting contact between a known child abuser and children. The court aff
• Wells Fargo Guard Servs. Inc. OF Fla. v. Nash
  654 So. 2d 155· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-04-04 ·cited 6×
  Wells Fargo Guard Services appeals a negligence judgment for $556,000 awarded to a parking garage patron who was robbed and pistol-whipped. The court affirms liability but reverses and remands for a new trial because the verdict form failed to include the hospital as a non-party
• Phillips v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  813 F.2d 1173· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that circumstantial evidence was sufficient to create a jury question on employer reliance for negligent inspection claims, and that workers' compensation payments and a settlement with a co-defendant should not be offset against the verdict due to lack of proof of
• Cyril C. Janke and Aileen L. Janke v. Corinthian Gardens, Inc.
  405 So. 2d 740· Fla. 4th DCA· 1981-10-07 ·cited 6×
  Plaintiffs appealed from directed verdict and jury verdict in favor of condominium association and developer after plaintiff slipped and fell on wet parking deck. The court affirmed, holding that the association had statutory duty to maintain the deck, expert testimony establishe
• Hodges v. United States
  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.
• Cantalupo v. Lewis
  47 So. 3d 896· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-10-27 ·cited 4×
  A deceased person's estate sued the defendant for negligently entrusting or undertaking responsibilities regarding his intoxicated brother's car keys, after the brother drove while impaired and caused a fatal collision. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, holdi
• Figueroa v. Evangelical Covenant Church
  879 F.2d 1427· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that North Park College did not owe a duty to protect Suzanne Figueroa from criminal attack under Illinois law, as she did not qualify as an invitee and the college's voluntary undertaking of security did not extend to the specific crime committed.
• Jones v. United States
  703 F.2d 246· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the post office did not assume a duty to keep the public sidewalk clear of gravel, and thus was not liable for injuries resulting from a slip and fall on the sidewalk.
• Trosclair v. Bechtel Corp.
  653 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the plaintiffs, did not establish that the defendant contractor undertook to render services for the subcontractor or its employees, nor did it satisfy any of the conditions required for liability under Restatement (Secon
• Camp v. Paul N. Howard Co.
  853 So. 2d 1072· Fla. 5th DCA· 2003-06-13 ·cited 3×
  Camp, Dresser & McKee (CDM), an engineer on a water project, sued the general contractor Paul N. Howard Company for contractual indemnity after settling a personal injury claim by an electrical accident victim. The court reversed summary judgment against CDM, holding that the ind
• Merritt v. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
  875 F.2d 603· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the landowner owed no duty to the independent contractor's employee beyond warning of latent defects, as the contractor and employee were aware of the risks involved in working with energized lines.
• Smith v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
  752 F.2d 1535· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-12 ·cited 2×
  Employee reliance on an employer's insurance company's safety inspections can be shown by the employee's testimony of reliance and reasons for it, without needing to prove specific acts or omissions in their own precautions.
• Smith v. Universal Underwriters Ins. Co.
  732 F.2d 129· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 2×
  The court certified a question to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding whether employee reliance on an employer's insurance carrier's safety inspections can be shown solely by the employee's testimony of reliance, or if evidence of changed precautions is required.
• Hill v. James Walker Mem'l Hosp. & Orkin Exterminating Co.
  407 F.2d 1036· 4th Cir.· 1969-03-11 ·cited 2×
  A charitable hospital's defense of charitable immunity is unavailable to the extent its trust funds are protected by insurance, and a pest control company hired by the hospital cannot assert charitable immunity or a lack of privity defense in a negligence action for failing to ri
• Rehab. Ctr. at Hollywood Hills, LLC v. Fla. Power & Light Co. & Hollywood Prop. Invs., LLC
  299 So. 3d 16· Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-05-20 ·cited 1×
  A utility company owes no common law duty to the general public or non-customers to provide and maintain continuous electrical service, and therefore a complaint alleging negligence based on failure to restore power after a hurricane fails to state a cause of action. The undertak
• DE LA Torre v. Flanigan's Enters., Inc.
  187 So. 3d 330· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-03-09 ·cited 1×
  Plaintiffs injured by a drunk driver sued the bar where the driver had consumed alcohol, arguing the bar assumed a voluntary duty to prevent drunk driving through its internal policies and actions. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that Florida's dram shop immunity statute pr
• Travelers Ins. Co. v. Securitylink From Ameritech, Inc.
  995 So. 2d 1175· Fla. 3d DCA· 2008-12-10 ·cited 1×
  A security company that undertakes to render services to an alarm company, which are necessary for the protection of the alarm company's customers' property, may be liable to the customer for negligent performance of those services.
• Jayne v. Beef O'Brady's of DeFuniak Springs, LLC
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2022-09-14
  In a conversion action, damages are measured by the fair market value of the property at the time of conversion, and a converter cannot benefit from its own wrongful act by arguing the property was worth less at the time of taking when evidence shows it had greater market value i
• Kelsey Murray v. Mason
  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
• Pollack v. Nikolas Jacob Cruz
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-05-27
  A mental health provider owes no legal duty to warn third parties or protect them from the criminal acts of a voluntary outpatient patient, particularly when the patient has long since discontinued care, because the future dangerousness of a psychiatric patient is inherently unpr
• Cooper v. Fla. Power & Light Co. & Hollywood Prop. Invs., LLC
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2020-05-20
  The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a negligence and strict liability complaint against Florida Power & Light (FPL). The court held that FPL owes no common law duty to the general public to provide continuous electricity, especially after a natural disaster like a hurri
• Nat'l Fire Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Johnson Controls Fire Prot. LP
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-10
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a plausible negligence claim because the complaint did not allege facts establishing that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff's subrogor under the undertaker's doctrine, particularly as the claim involved economic l
• Dunfee v. KGL Holdings Riverfront, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-04-30
  The court denied the motions to dismiss filed by GRS, SAV, and Varitikias, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently alleged negligence under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A(c) based on reliance on a property assessment. The court granted Keycorp and Keybank National Association'
• Tette
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2016-08-31
  The appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to present evidence that the parent corporation (AT&T) assumed a duty of care to the subsidiary's employee (Daniel Jones) under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A. The court found no e
• Harris v. Quickform Concrete Co., LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2007-03-02
  The court granted summary judgment for One Call Concepts and Miss Utility, finding no basis for liability. Delmarva Power & Light remains in the litigation solely on the issue of alleged violation of federal regulations, with a Daubert hearing scheduled. The summary judgment moti
• In & for New Castle Cnty. in re: Asbestos Litig.
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2005-02-15
  The court granted summary judgment for defendants on claims arising under Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 324A, 410, and 414, finding that the defendants did not exercise the "active control" over the work necessary to establish liability. However, the court denied summary judgm
• Pratt v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  952 F.2d 667· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-02
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding evidence of the insurer's advertisements and in granting a directed verdict, as the evidence was sufficient for a jury to find the insurer undertook a duty of care under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A.
• Graham v. Milky WAY Barge, Inc.
  923 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1991-01-31
  An insurance broker is not liable for failure to procure insurance if the requested amendments would not have provided coverage due to existing warranty violations. A broker also has no duty to warn passengers of vessel unsafety based solely on an inspection for insurance risk pu
• Schwab v. United States
  649 F. Supp. 1319· M.D. Fla.· 1986-12-15
  The United States is not liable under the FTCA for the negligence of an independent contractor or its employees, nor for the negligent performance of a voluntary undertaking to provide safety inspections, unless the government's involvement rises to the level of a joint endeavor.
• Kuchenbecker v. N. Wyo. Drilling Co.
  647 F.2d 836· 8th Cir.· 1981-05-06
  The court held that summary judgment for individual defendants was improper because the employer's lack of worker's compensation insurance removed any potential immunity, and allegations of personal negligence raised material issues of fact.