326 So. 2d 48 - Watson v. Watson’s Empirical Analysis
1976
Citation profile
2 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently April 2004
2 district · 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 8 Ariz. App. 272 - Brenner v. Aetna Insurance Company · Mason v. Celina Mutual Insurance Company · Azar v. Employers Casualty Company · 248 So. 2d 238 - National Indemnity Co. v. Corbo · 273 So. 2d 117 - St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. v. Thomas
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[I]n order for liability coverage to exist, the incident must arise out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the car. The term "arising out of" has been interpreted to mean "originating from", "growing out of", or "flowing from." St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Thomas, Fla.App.4th, 1973, 273 So.2d 117 . This does not require a showing of proximate cause between the accident and the use of the car, but there must be a causal connection or relation between the two for liability to exist. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company v. Thomas, supra.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage““To determine if insurance coverage exists for accidental bodily injury arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of an insured vehicle, consideration must be given to the injured party’s action as well as the party’s intent and whether the injury sustained was a natural and reasonable incident or consequence of the use of the vehicle involved.” “In order for an injury to arise out of the use of an insured vehicle, it need not be the proximate cause of the injury; it is sufficient if there is a causal connection between the injury and the use of the automobile.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“... We do not agree that this is sufficient to establish a causal relation between the death of John Watson and the use of the car. Here, the car was merely the physical situs of the accidental discharge of the pistol. This could have occurred anywhere the pistol was located. The fact that the fatal event occurred at or near the car was fortuitous. There was no causal connection between it and the use of the auto. The death of John Watson occurred through the use of a pistol, not the use of a car. Thus, there is no coverage under Interstate's policy.”
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.