Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 SO2D 462 - Slavin v. Kay

Slavin v. Kay’s Empirical Analysis

1959

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
5
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

95 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably 369 So. 2d 572 - Overland Const. Co., Inc. v. Sirmons (1979), Erickson v. Monarch Industries, Inc. (1984)

95 state decisions

3201959196019701980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on MacPherson v. . Buick Motor Co. · Foley v. the Pittsburgh-Des Moines Co. · Breeding's Dania Drug Co. v. Runyon · Casey v. Wrought Iron Bridge Co. · Curtin v. Somerset

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “By occupying and resuming possession of the work, the owner deprives the contractor of all opportunity to rectify his wrong. Before accepting the work as being in full compliance with the terms of the contract, he is presumed to have made a reasonably careful inspection thereof, and to know of its defects, and if he takes it in the defective condition, he accepts the defects and the negligence that caused them as his own, and thereafter stands forth as their author. When he accepts work that is in a dangerous condition, the immediate duty devolves upon him to make it safe, and if he fails to perform this duty, and a third person is injured, it is his negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury. His liability may be incurred either from his substitution for the contractor or from his neglect to repair. Slavin, 108 So.2d at 466 , quoting Annot., 13 A.L.R.2d, pp. 207-8. [This annotation has been superceded, see Annot., 58 A.L.R.2d 865 (1958), discussing the negligence of a building or construction contractor as a ground of liability upon his part for injury or damage to a third person occurring after completion and acceptance of the work.]”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “"* * * Where, as in the instant case, the owner cannot be held to have assumed the risk of a particular defect or danger, then there is no intervening fault to sever the causal relation between the contractor's negligence and the injury, and he should be answerable to the same extent as for any negligent act which involves an unreasonable risk to third parties." 108 So.2d at 467 (footnote omitted).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In the case of latent defects not discoverable and not in fact discovered, the contractor's original negligence remains the proximate cause of the plaintiff's injury and may render him liable to him although the injury has occurred after the acceptance of the work by the owner.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.