Lancaster v. Lancaster’s Empirical Analysis
1952
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently January 1994 · most notably 276 So. 2d 309 - Jagers v. Royal Indemnity Company (1973), Attwood v. Estate of Attwood (1982)
7 federal appellate · 21 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 Hewlett v. George · Le Vonas v. Acme Paper Board Co. · Mauney v. Gulf Refining Co. · Williams v. Lumpkin · Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Bloodworth
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The only plausible theory under which Michael’s conduct could be left open as a factual issue is that there remained a duty to protect the servants of the independent contractor against unreasonable risks. It retained no control over the means and methods whereby Bob Lancaster was to prosecute his work. Indeed the subcontractor testified that Michael did not supervise or control him and that he was his own boss using his own methods. It is to be stressed that this case does not involve an injury caused to a third person. The exceptions to the complete responsibility of an independent contractor find no place here since the injury was suffered by a servant of the independent contractor. It has often been announced that even if the work is inherently dangerous, the contractee does not remain liable for injuries caused by a servant of an independent contractor by the negligence of the latter, and that such servant is not a. third person under the doctrine covering this relationship. 57 So.2d 305 .”
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.