430 So. 2d 16 - Brown v. White’s Empirical Analysis
1983
Citation profile
31 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Nicholas v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2000), 983 So. 2d 798 - Adams v. Rhodia, Inc. (2008)
31 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 Canter v. Koehring Company · Langlois v. Allied Chemical Corporation · Marcotte v. Travelers Insurance Company · 399 So. 2d 559 - Dorry v. LaFleur · 340 So. 2d 1331 - Prestenbach v. Sentry Ins. Co.
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 jury found that The National Drying Machinery Company was negligent in manufacturing the drying system, but that this negligence was not a proximate cause of Brown's injury. This finding was not correct, but the result is the same. The record reveals that du-Pont submitted to The National Drying Machinery Company the design specifications for the drying system, and that National merely transferred these designs according to its production scale to its own blueprints. A manufacturer cannot be held negligent when it has no part in the design of a system, when it is the system design which presents dangerous risks to the employees, unless the danger is or should be apparent to the manufacturer. C.C. 2315. Therefore, the finding that The National Drying Machinery Company was negligent is reversed."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“"Every employer shall furnish employment which shall be reasonably safe for the employees therein. They shall furnish and use safety devices and safeguards, shall adopt and use methods and processes reasonably adequate to render such employment and the place of employment safe in accordance with the accepted and approved practice in such or similar industry or places of employment considering the normal hazard of such employment, and shall do every other thing reasonably necessary to protect the life, health, safety and welfare of such employees. Nothing in this Section shall apply to employment in private domestic service or to agricultural field occupations."”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“inform his supervisory personnel of any safety problem made known to him to allow them the opportunity to rectify the situation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.