Restatement (Second) Of Torts § 416

14 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Klaus Roessler v. Russell W. Novak, M.D.
  858 So. 2d 1158· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-11-07 ·cited 59×
  Klaus Roessler appeals a summary judgment dismissing his vicarious liability claim against Sarasota Memorial Hospital for alleged negligent misinterpretation of abdominal scans by radiologist Dr. Lichtenstein. The court reversed, holding that genuine issues of material fact exist
• Parsons v. Amerada Hess Corp.
  422 F.2d 610· 10th Cir.· 1970-02-27 ·cited 53×
  The court held that summary judgment was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the decedent's knowledge and appreciation of the specific dangers of hydrogen sulfide, and the applicability of Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 principles.
• Brown v. Ivarans Rederi A/S
  545 F.2d 854· 3d Cir.· 1976-11-04 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the trial court erred in instructing the jury based on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 416, as it imposes vicarious liability inconsistent with the negligence remedy created by § 905(b) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act.
• Eleanore Higginbotham Aretz v. United States
  604 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-15 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a contracting purchaser may owe a duty to warn a manufacturer's employees of hazards involved in making the product, and failure to warn can be proximate cause of injury.
• United States v. DeCAMP
  478 F.2d 1188· 9th Cir.· 1973-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the government's decision not to require canopy guards on bulldozers, based on local custom and safety considerations, did not constitute negligence under the Tort Claims Act, as the decision was discretionary and did not encompass the risk of the accident tha
• Wilson v. Good Humor Corp. & David A. Williams
  757 F.2d 1293· D.C. Cir.· 1985-03-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant Good Humor may have a duty to warn its independent contractors of peculiar risks associated with curbside ice cream sales, but the extent of this duty is not definitively settled by the majority.
• Slagle v. United States
  612 F.2d 1157· 9th Cir.· 1980-01-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the United States was not liable under the FTCA for the actions of a drug informant, as the informant was neither an employee nor an independent contractor for whose actions the government could be held responsible.
• Bramer v. United States
  595 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-16 ·cited 12×
  The court held that under current New Mexico law, the government does not owe a nondelegable duty to employees of an independent contractor injured by the contractor's work, thus precluding FTCA relief.
• Amacker v. Skelly Oil Co.
  132 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1942-12-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the defendant owed a duty of care to the deceased, and there was sufficient evidence to present the issues of causation, negligence, and assumption of risk to the jury.
• Toole v. United States
  588 F.2d 403· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-04 ·cited 11×
  The United States is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for the death of an independent contractor's employee when the government had superior knowledge of a specific danger and failed to warn the contractor or employee.
• Johns v. Pettibone Corp.
  843 F.2d 464· 11th Cir.· 1988-04-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that TVA employees are entitled to immunity for discretionary acts, and that TVA properly delegated its duty to provide a safe workplace to the independent contractor CE, satisfying its landowner duty through contractual warnings.
• James v. KEY
  906 F.2d 500· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the trial court erred in failing to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict for Mitchell Energy, but did not err in denying such motions for Liquid Energy on proximate cause and legal duty.
• Peone v. Regulus Stud Mills, Inc.
  858 F.2d 550· 9th Cir.· 1988-10-03 ·cited 2×
  An employer of an independent contractor may be held liable for injuries to the contractor's employee if the employer failed to ensure compliance with safety regulations that were designed to prevent the type of harm suffered and the violation proximately caused the injury.
• McCALL v. United States Dep't OF Energy Through Bonneville Power Admin.
  914 F.2d 191· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-17
  Montana law imposes a nondelegable duty on project owners to ensure a safe workplace for employees engaged in inherently dangerous activities, and the United States, as project owner, can be liable under the FTCA for breaching this duty through its own employees' negligence.