385 So. 2d 1378 - Relyea v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 2 district · 45 state decisions

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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “As a basic principle of law, a property owner has no duty to protect one on his premises from criminal attack by a third person... . Even though one's negligence may be a cause in fact of another's loss, he will not be liable if an independent, intervening and unforeseeable criminal act also causes the loss.... If, however, the criminal attack is reasonably foreseeable, a duty may arise between a landowner and his invitee. But it must be borne in mind that a landowner is not an insurer of the safety of his invitees and is not required to take precautions against a sudden attack from a third person which he has no reason to anticipate... . In order to impose a duty upon a landowner to protect an invitee from criminal acts of a third person a plaintiff, invitee, must allege and prove that the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of prior, similar criminal acts committed upon invitees. The landowner is not bound to anticipate criminal activities of third persons where, as here, the wrongdoers were complete strangers to the landowner and to the victims, and where the incident occurred precipitously.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Doe v. United States · 405 So. 2d 485 - Medina v. 187th Street Apartments, Ltd.

2. “[w]hether to provide security guards, parking attendants, security gates, and the numbers thereof, are clearly discretionary decisions.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. 560 So. 2d 395 - Newell v. Best SEC. Systems, Inc. · 493 So. 2d 474 - Broward County School Bd. v. Ruiz

3. “In order to impose a duty upon a landowner to protect an invitee from criminal acts of a third person a plaintiff, invitee, must allege and prove that the landowner had actual or constructive knowledge of prior, similar criminal acts committed upon invitees. The landowner is not bound to anticipate criminal activities of third persons where, as here, the wrongdoers were complete strangers to the landowner and to the victims, and where the incident occurred precipitously. Totten [ v. More Oakland Residential House, Inc., 63 Cal. App.3d 538 , 134 Cal. Rptr. 29 (1976)]. See also, Shipes v. Piggly-Wiggly St. Andrews, Inc., 238 S.E.2d 167 (S.C. 1977). Appellants simply failed to allege or prove that any prior assaults upon persons had been committed in the area of the abduction and murder, or for that matter, anywhere on the campus. In fact, the proof showed there had not been one serious crime against a person since the school was founded in 1963. The reported incidents involved minor larcenies from automobiles and school buildings, hit and run complaints for minor automobile damage, and miscellaneous incidents such as malicious mischief. These facts do not give rise to the foreseeability of violent assaults which, in turn, may give rise to a duty to protect.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 398 So. 2d 834 - Highlands Ins. Co. v. Gilday