830 So. 2d 526 - Adams v. Traina’s Empirical Analysis
2002
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on 744 So. 2d 606 - Hardy v. Bowie · 640 So. 2d 1305 - Theriot v. Lasseigne · 620 So. 2d 811 - Mundy v. Dept. of Health & Human Res. · 816 So. 2d 270 - Pinsonneault v. Merchants & Farmers Bank & Trust Company · Lasyone v. Kansas City Southern RR
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The foreseeability of the crime risk on the defendant's property and the gravity of the risk determine the existence and the extent of the defendant's duty. The greater the foreseeability and gravity of the harm, the greater the duty of care that will be imposed on the business. A very high degree of foreseeability is required to give rise to a duty to post security guards, but a lower degree of foreseeability may support a duty to implement lesser security measures such as using surveillance cameras, installing improved lighting or fencing, or trimming shrubbery. The plaintiff has the burden of establishing the duty the defendant owed under the circumstances. The foreseeability and gravity of the harm are to be determined by the facts and circumstances of the case. The most important factor to be considered is the existence, frequency and similarity of prior incidents of crime on the premises, but the location, nature and condition of the property should also be taken into account. It is highly unlikely that a crime risk will be sufficiently foreseeable for the imposition of a duty to provide security guards if there have not been previous instances of crime on the business' premises.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where there are concurrent causes of an accident, the proper inquiry is whether the conduct in question was a substantial factor in bringing about the harm or injuries.”
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.