Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 511 So. 2d 412 - Otis Elevator Co. v. Chambliss

511 So. 2d 412 - Otis Elevator Co. v. Chambliss’s Empirical Analysis

1987

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
3
states following
February 2011
most recently cited

10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently February 2011

10 state decisions

501987199020002010decided

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 280 So. 2d 431 - Hoffman v. Jones · 114 Ill. 2d 232 - Dyback v. Weber · Tipton v. Texaco, Inc. · 358 So. 2d 1339 - Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc. · Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Gordon

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

  1. “The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine of "extremely limited applicability." Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc., 358 So.2d 1339 (Fla. 1978). The doctrine's applicability has been described in Goodyear thusly: Essentially, the injured plaintiff must establish that the instrumentality causing his or her injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant, and that the accident is one that would not, in the ordinary course of events, have occurred without negligence on the part of the one in control. The district courts of Florida have expanded the doctrine far beyond its intended perimeters, both by liberalizing the elements requisite to its application and by allowing the development of inferences not only as to the incident itself but also as to pre-incident acts, such as manufacture or production. Plainly, the threshold inquiry is whether that which occurred is a phenomenon which does not ordinarily happen except in the absence of due care. The initial burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the circumstances attendant to the injury are such that, in the light of past experience, negligence is the probable cause and the defendant is the probable actor. An injury standing alone, of course, ordinarily does not indicate negligence. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur simply recognizes that in rare instances an injury may permit an inference of negligence if coupled with a sufficient showing of its immediate, precipitating cause.”
    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.