Ladenson v. Eder’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
February 1967
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Holland Paving Co. v. Dann · Goldberg v. Straus · 171 So. 2d 606 - Matarese v. Leesburg Elks Club · Lowery v. Rosenberg · 116 So. 2d 251 - Tomei v. Center
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"The record essentially reveals that Mrs. Ladenson slipped and fell upon a terrazzo floor in an area previously travelled by her without incident. The floor in question had received an application of a sealer compound some days previously. The floor was slippery. Plaintiffs charge within the context of Goldberg v. Straus, supra, that this slippery floor under these circumstances constituted an exception to the rule that a guest must take the premises as he finds them. They say it was an artificial dangerous condition of which the defendants had actual knowledge, plus the realization that it involved an unreasonable risk to Mrs. Ladenson, and that the defendants had reason to believe that Mrs. Ladenson would not discover this dangerous condition or realize the risk involved by the exercise of reasonable care. They contend that the defendants had a clear duty to warn Mrs. Ladenson of the condition and the risk involved. "[3] It is a matter of common knowledge that terrazzo floors are in popular use in south Florida and that same are treated with sealers and waxes as a matter of maintenance. The properties of such floors are well known. "[4] Indulging every fact and inference favorable to plaintiffs, we simply feel that the proofs presented do not constitute a violation of the legal duty owed to Mrs. Ladenson, a licensee. See Freeman v. Hallevue, Inc., Fla.App. 1965, 179 So.2d 859 ." (at 836-837)”
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.