Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 721 So. 2d 756 - Aurbach v. Gallina

721 So. 2d 756 - Aurbach v. Gallina’s Empirical Analysis

1998

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently March 2016

16 state decisions

130199820002010decided

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 572 So. 2d 1363 - Kraemer v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Thor Bear, Inc. v. Crocker Mizner Park · 629 So. 2d 903 - Warshall v. Price · 549 So. 2d 1380 - Rowlands v. Signal Const. Co. · 69 So. 2d 887 - Frankel v. Fleming

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

  1. “inadequate in light of the facts and circumstances which were presented to the trier of fact.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “In the context of family relationships, the better rule is to have legal responsibility follow title ownership, a bright line standard which makes liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine both foreseeable and predictable. To analyze family dynamics to determine all the "beneficial" owners of a car is to impose a fuzzy legal standard that will encourage litigation and potentially expand liability beyond that which is justified by the rationale for the rule. In this case, Louis Gallina was not an owner, bailee, or lessee of the automobile sufficient to impose liability under the dangerous instrumentality doctrine. He did not put the car in the possession of a non-family member. Angelina Gallina's operation of the car on the date of the accident was with the permission of the title owner, her mother Carolina. Under the facts of this case, the trial court did not err in granting Louis Gallina's motion in accordance with his motion for directed verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The dangerous instrumentality doctrine seeks to provide greater financial responsibility to pay for the carnage on our roads. It is premised upon the theory that the one who originates the danger by entrusting the automobile to another is in the best position to make certain that there will be adequate resources with which to pay the damages caused by its negligent operation. If Florida's traffic problems were sufficient to prompt its adoption in 1920, there is all the more reason for its application to today's high-speed travel upon crowded highways. The dangerous instrumentality doctrine is unique to Florida and has been applied with very few exceptions.”
    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.