167 So. 2d 20 - Petitte v. Welch’s Empirical Analysis
1964
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently July 1987
1 federal appellate · 13 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 Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson · Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co., Inc. v. Harper · Weber v. Porco · Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc.
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"* * * Indeed, we find nothing in the decisions applying the `dangerous instrumentality doctrine' to justify a holding that where an owner leaves his automobile at a service station for repairs or servicing he is liable solely by reason of ownership for the negligent operation thereof by one employee resulting in injury to another employee of the service station, both being engaged in performing duties in connection with servicing or repairing the automobile at the time of the injury." (Emphasis court's)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“"The appellant argues the broad proposition that the dangerous instrumentality doctrine ought not be limited to the operation of an automobile on the public highways of this State. Such a holding would be contrary to the express statement of the Supreme Court in many decided cases. [Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Anderson, 80 Fla. 441 , 86 So. 629 , 16 A.L.R. 255 ; Crenshaw Bros. Produce Co. v. Harper, 142 Fla. 27 , 194 So. 353 .] In particular such a holding under the circumstances of this case would be contrary to that of the District Court of Appeal, Second District in Fry v. Robinson Printers, Inc., Fla.App. 1963, 155 So.2d 645 . "* * * "The dangerous instrumentality doctrine as applied to automobiles in Florida has always been grounded exclusively upon respondeat superior. Weber v. Porco, Fla. 1958, 100 So.2d 146 . The complaint in the present instance affirmatively shows that the automobile was not being operated by an agent or servant of the defendant, owner, but on the contrary that it was being operated by a person under the direction and control of the filling station operator. We hold therefore that the complaint failed to state a cause of action against 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.