Overby v. Wille’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently December 2009
1 federal appellate · 9 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 386 So. 2d 520 - Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. · Cone v. Inter County Telephone Telegraph Co. · 401 So. 2d 1115 - Jackson v. State · 296 So. 2d 629 - Kwoka v. Campbell · 389 So. 2d 270 - Guice v. Enfinger
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is conceded that where injury results from an active and efficient cause which intervenes between the negligent act of the tortfeasor and the injury, liability may well be a legal issue for determination by the court. Kwoka v. Campbell, 296 So.2d 629 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Appellees expect too much of that principle here, however, in as much as the question of whether the intervening cause was foreseeable is ordinarily one for the trier of fact. Gibson v. Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc., 386 So.2d 520 (Fla. 1980). Only a total absence of evidence to support an inference that the intervening cause was foreseeable justifies the court in removing the question from the trier of fact. See Guice v. Enfinger, 389 So.2d 270 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The Guice case also arose out of a jail suicide but in that case there was no evidence of mental or emotional aberration. The Guice court laid down yet another principle which has application here. The court stated that as to a loss or injury which is not a direct result of the negligent act, recovery will not be allowed if the injury was only "possible" as opposed to "probable." The opinion continues by defining the former term as: "those which happen so infrequently from the commission of a particular act, that in the field of human experience they are not expected as likely to happen again from the commission of the same act." 389 So.2d at 272 , quoting from Cone v. Inter-County Telephone & Telegraph Co., 40 So.2d 148, 149 (Fla. 1949). Id. at ”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“If the harm that occurs is within the scope of danger created by the defendant's negligent conduct, then such harm is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the negligence. The question of foreseeability and whether an intervening cause is foreseeable is for the trier of fact. (Emphasis in original).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“it was reasonably foreseeable that harm would befall [the inmate] either directly or indirectly as a result of the actions and omissions of the [corrections officers].”
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.