124 So. 2d 36 - Cromer v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis
1960
Citation profile
12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently June 1980
12 state decisions
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 72 So. 2d 285 - Jones v. Florida Power Corp. · Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., Inc. · 77 So. 2d 796 - Frantz v. McBee Company · 105 So. 2d 578 - Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals
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 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The plaintiff, as an employee of the ■City of Miami Beach, was entitled to workmen’s compensation benefits. 'Thomas was under contract with the -city to supply his crane and an operator ■(himself) for use on the job. The city ■did not have a general contractor. The ■determinative question here is whether, under the circumstances presented, the plaintiff could sue the crane owner-■operator for damages for his personal injuries. We hold that he could, and, therefore, that the able trial judge was in error in concluding the action would not lie. “Where construction is undertaken without a general contractor, and independent contractors are engaged to perform portions of the work, an employee of one such independent contractor, if injured in the course of such work by another independent contractor or by his employee, may bring suit .-against the latter independent contractor, under the authority of Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 285 . A difference between the Jones case and the present case is that here the injured plaintiff was not employed by an independent contractor but was working on the job as an employee of the city. The factual difference is not material, and Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., supra, is applicable. “Smith v. Poston Equipment Rentals, Fla.App. 1958, 105 So.2d 578 , is distinguishable because in that case there was a general contractor. There the existence of the general contractor prevented suit because of the operation of the Workmen’s Compensati”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““As to the significance of the absence of a general contractor, see Younger v. Giller Contracting Co., 143 Fla. 335 , 196 So. 690 ; Jones v. Fla. Power Corp., Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 285 .””
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.