Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 SO2D 884 - Ward v. Morgan County

Ward v. Morgan County’s Empirical Analysis

2000

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
1
states following
November 2008
most recently cited

1 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on 547 So. 2d 870 - West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of Florida · 587 So. 2d 5 - Veazey v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. · Grant v. Davis · Taylor v. Shoemaker · 384 So. 2d 1 - Cook v. County of St. Clair

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

  1. ““Under the facts of this case, reasonable persons could disagree as to whether it was foreseeable that injury or death could result from Morgan County’s failure to repair the shoulder drop-off on Indian Hills Road or to warn of the drop-off level that existed after the resurfacing. The trial court stated in Morgan County’s summary judgment that it was not foreseeable that any part of Anthony Ward’s vehicle would leave the paved portion of the road in an area where the roadway was straight and during daylight hours. This is tantamount to concluding that it is unforeseeable that a driver will leave the road in an attempt to avoid an object, to avoid a collision with another vehicle, or as a result of simple inadvertence — all of these things, in fact, can happen on a straight road during daylight hours. Why Anthony Ward’s vehicle left the road is not the central issue in this case, given the fact that the complaint alleges that his death occurred because the low shoulder drop-off prevented him from being able to return to the road safely. Moreover, the county’s own engineer testified that it was ‘a known fact’ that vehicles leave the road for various reasons. “Ward presented substantial evidence from which a jury could conclude that the county knew or should have known that a member of the motoring public might experience difficulty returning a vehicle to the paved portion of Indian Hills Road and might as a result of that difficulty, caused by an unreasonably dangerous shoulde”
    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.